When did the Roman Empire fall (your thoughts)?

[starman2012]

1806 end of Western Roman Empire

Lol, holy Roman Empire (so called).

[Eleatic Guest]

1806 end of Western Roman Empire

Lol, holy Roman Empire (so called).

The Holy Roman Empire was widely regarded throughout the medieval period as the continuation of the Roman Empire at least in the west. One can argue that's what counts, not the anachronistic views of people born hundreds of years later.

Who knows, perhaps future people won't view or name Great Britain or the USA as these states once the share of its white founding people has plummeted to a minority status. Just as historians renamed retrospectively the (Eastern) Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire once its ethnic and cultural substrate had turnt from Roman to Greek. Then future generations will laugh at you when you claim that the USA or GB of 1950 is the same state as that of 2050. :wink:

[M. Demetrius]

Lol, holy Roman Empire (so called).

Agree with the adjective or don't, that is the name by which it was/is known.

[Theodosius the Great]

The Holy Roman Empire was widely regarded throughout the medieval period as the continuation of the Roman Empire at least in the west. One can argue that's what counts, not the anachronistic views of people born hundreds of years later.

I have to agree with Voltaire (for reasons other than his own) that it was neither holy, Roman, or an empire. At the very least I can see it as a successor state. It succeeded as chief defender of (western) Christendom for centuries. And the emperor was crowned by the Pope. The HRE was surrounded by impish princelings who would surely have been gobbled up by the Moors in the West or later the Turks in the East had it not existed.

I'm more incredulous about the second date you cited. I'm unaware of any western historians who subscribe to the Turkish view that the Ottoman empire was a continuation of the Roman empire. I doubt the Christian subjects of the Ottomans or their Islamic enemies in Persia saw it that way. Does anyone know?

~Theo

[starman2012]

The HRE was surrounded by impish princelings who would surely have been gobbled up by the Moors in the West or later the Turks in the East had it not existed.

But Tours 732 CE preceded the HRE and the Eastern Empire did the job of containing turks down to mid 15th century. Western intervention just prior to 1453 e.g. in 1444, was ineffective.

[Theodosius the Great]

Yes, Tours preceded the HRE, but the threat did not end afterwards. Clearly, Charlemagne felt the need to create the Spanish March. Then the Umayyads established themselves in the Iberian peninsula for over 100 years and became a bigger threat given their expansionist bent.

As for the Turks, I qualified my statement by saying "western Christendom" and "later". The Turks eventually reached the gates of Vienna - twice, I believe.

~Theo

[starman2012]

Yes, Tours preceded the HRE, but the threat did not end afterwards. Clearly, Charlemagne felt the need to create the Spanish March.

I think the idea was to liberate as many christians as possible. The basques in that area are said to have been the last to submit to the authority of Rome and the first to throw off the yoke of the arabs.

Then the Umayyads established themselves in the Iberian peninsula for over 100 years and became a bigger threat given their expansionist bent.

But wasn't tours the muslim high water mark in western europe?

The Turks eventually reached the gates of Vienna - twice, I believe.

Sure 1529 and 1683 IIRC.

[Shaddix1980]

I never argued the date of when the Empire fell. In my view the Empire began with the emperor and ended with a Roman emperor - perhaps because I like things all nice and neat. Sure it went on for a few more decades but the following people that ruled over Rome took the title of king and did not really pretend to be Romans.

You can still argue that the Eastern Empire survived for nearly a thousand years longer, but that is a whole other story.

For my own thought, I always believed Rome fell because they lost their identity - that spark that made them special for so many centuries. What was Roman by the 5th century any more? Not much.

[Eleatic Guest]

I have to agree with Voltaire (for reasons other than his own) that it was neither holy, Roman, or an empire. At the very least I can see it as a successor state.

Voltaire (d. 1778) live close to the very end of the Holy Roman Empire (1806). For this reason alone, his opinion cannot be taken as representative other than for his time at best. Throughout the medieval period, the claim of the HRR was not contested by any significant political or ideological force (save Byzantium, obviously).

I'm more incredulous about the second date you cited. I'm unaware of any western historians who subscribe to the Turkish view that the Ottoman empire was a continuation of the Roman empire.

While the Ottoman sultan added the "emperor" to his titles, I did not mean the Ottoman Empire, but Russia, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome.

[starman2012]

For my own thought, I always believed Rome fell because they lost their identity - that spark that made them special for so many centuries. What was Roman by the 5th century any more? Not much.

Lost their identity or no longer identified with Rome, due to being christians or barbarians. Both sides cooperated to an extent but neither could relate very well to the Roman Empire. It wasn't at the top of their priority list--far from it, so they let it go down the tubes.

[starman2012]

Throughout the medieval period, the claim of the HRR was not contested by any significant political or ideological force (save Byzantium, obviously).

At times they couldn't even stand up to the holy joes e.g. going to conossa 1077.

[Epictetus]

For my own thought, I always believed Rome fell because they lost their identity - that spark that made them special for so many centuries. What was Roman by the 5th century any more? Not much.

But "Rome" was a constantly evolving concept. How does one define it? How much would the Romans under the kings have in common with Scipio, Cicero, Antoninus Pius or Diocletian? Could these diverse people even agree upon a common ideal or goal for the Roman res publica?

[M. Demetrius]

Gosh, Tim, calling them "holy joes"? What does that mean, anyway? :unsure: We might get the impression you have an antichristian mindset. :wink:

Lost their identity or no longer identified with Rome, due to being christians or barbarians.

Most of the population of the Roman Empire was composed of "barbarians" who had been assimilated either as client kingdoms, made provinces or made out and out citizens over the centuries. By 45-50, there existed a significant population of Christians in the city of Rome itself, as indicated by Paul's epistle to the same from around that date.

There were many forces acting on the demise of the empire, not the least of which was the continued expansionist notions of the government making it impossible to send "Roman" soldiers to guard all the frontiers, so they had to use "barbarian" conscripts. Empires take money to continue, and money came from expanding and looting neighboring nations. There was nowhere else they could easily find anyone to extract more funds to keep things running. Other empires built on continual expansion have found the same problem to be insoluble. It just took Rome a little longer than some to get to the tipping point.

Some have said that the "fall" of Rome would have been nearly imperceptible to the people living in the central empire at that time. There was just increased talk about the dilution of Roman thinking, longing for the "good old days" and a realization that the future looked increasingly dim. Just as Rome wasn't built in a day, it didn't end in a single night.

[Theodosius the Great]

Lost their identity or no longer identified with Rome, due to being christians or barbarians. Both sides cooperated to an extent but neither could relate very well to the Roman Empire. It wasn't at the top of their priority list--far from it, so they let it go down the tubes.

Orosius, writing around the 420s after being driven from his native province in Iberia by barbarians, makes quite clear his sympathies for the Roman Empire from a Christian perspective. He saw the Empire as the primary instrument for disseminating Christianity since its founding by Augustus and up to his present day.

Ever since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem the Christians made great efforts to distinguish themselves from the Jews by disavowing violent rebellion against the state to avoid suspicion and persecution. So, one could argue that being pro-Roman was the traditional Christian position.

You can still argue that the Eastern Empire survived for nearly a thousand years longer, but that is a whole other story.

Opinions can be argued, sure. But facts are facts. What is there to dispute with the Empire's continuity in the East? Roman military discipline went on as before. The government didn't collapse.

Although the official language of the Empire was changed Latin to Greek it was called Romaike, which literally means "the Roman language". So, I see no evidence of any lack of identity with Rome among the populace. Just the opposite. I think Christianity gave the populace a sense of Roman identity that wasn't there before as David pointed out. (Or, at least, it greatly strengthened Roman identity.)

While the Ottoman sultan added the "emperor" to his titles, I did not mean the Ottoman Empire, but Russia, the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome.

My mistake. Maybe I misread it as 1918

~Theo

[starman2012]

But "Rome" was a constantly evolving concept. How does one define it? How much would the Romans under the kings have in common with Scipio, Cicero, Antoninus Pius or Diocletian? Could these diverse people even agree upon a common ideal or goal for the Roman res publica?

Just a desire to serve the Roman State. That's one thing most citizens had in common prior to the fifth century.