09-07-2012, 12:45 PM
@ 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.
"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.
thanks for reading, David Hennion
