Which year did the Roman Empire fall?

[Agricola]

476 is perhaps the most arbitrary and unimportant date-nothing of importance happened.

QFT

Fully agree. The 2 italian provinces, which were the lousy rest, the Augustus of the WRE governed, was now governed by a german patricius. Actually the more convenient solution anyways from a roman point of view. And the roman point of view was defined in Constantinople since 200 years.

The nostalgia about a city and a province, which played no major role anymore since centuries is always surprising.

 

[Caesar Biden]

I think even 1453 is, if not arbitrary, not quite the end of the Roman Empire. The Empire of Trebizond still existed for a while after 1453, with emperors that were just as legitimate as those in Constantinople.

Empires do not fall in a single year. The Roman Catholic Church is still around, and the legacy of Rome endures from Turkey to Russia to the Pacific. Legally, I'd guess 1453 is probably the absolute best date you can get, but only legally. Culturally, it either never fell or came unraveled in the 19th and 20th centuries.

 

[betrayor]

It fell for the first time in 1204 then for a second time in 1453.......

 

[avernite]

If Napoleon conquered Italy, Italy was assimilated into France for around 500 years, to the point where it was culturally French and the people considered themselves Frenchmen...and then France fell, then yes, it would certainly be just as French as France.

The thing about these comparisons is they ignore that Rome had control of the east from circa 60 BC (and as early as 133 BCE, as far as Asia Minor was concerned), and that control persisted for over 500 years before the west fell. During that time, everyone in the empire was granted Roman citizenship, the citizens in the east undoubtedly referred to them as Romans, and the senior emperor mostly ruled from Constantinople or Nikomedia for 200 odd years. Not to mention, the capital in the west hadn't been Rome for around 200 years either.

Nor, was Italy the center that everything revolved around since the second century. Rome had emperors from Spain, Illyria, Thrace, and North Africa, almost all of Rome's soldiers were non-Italians, and the most economically vital regions of the empire were Spain, North Africa, Egypt, and Syria. Hell, a sizable proportion, if not an outright majority, of the Senate wasn't even Italian.

And the Turks of Rum had been lording it over what they referred to as Rome for 4 centuries when, at last, they captured the apparent capital of the Roman Empire. They subsequently claimed to be Rome and ruled over much the same land with much the same people. They took power by the age-old military usurpation method.

So, I would say, there's still debate. None of the transfers from one Rome to another not-Rome are crystal-clear, unless you go all the way to 1923 (and even then, Italy had a few years of pretending to be a Roman Empire, but they did seem to call it resurrection; and Turkey is still a fairly clear successor to the then-Roman OE; but at least here 'claiming to be the Roman Empire' ends.)

 

[snerfuplz]

I vote 1453. Even before the fall of the West Rome had become a sleepy backwater compared to the cities used as imperial capitals and other wealthy cities. It had ceased to be important within the empire

 

[KittyKat]

Alot of people say the fall of Rome was 1204. Im personally inclined to say 1453. Question though for any expert, what did the emperors of Nicaea call themselves? If they continued to call themselves roman emperors than shouldn't the Empire of Nicaea's 57 years of existence just be considered an era of the Byzantine Empire with a different capital?

 

[Beedok]

The late Byzantines were really only about as much the Roman Empire as modern Taiwan is truly the Republic of China.

 

[Sabot Cat]

The late Byzantines were really only about as much the Roman Empire as modern Taiwan is truly the Republic of China.

So, they were.

That is to say, I think legal continuity is the most important part of asking if a certain state is another one or the same as it was: and the Roman Empire based out of Constantinople didn't have any obvious de jure break from the SPQR.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

Alot of people say the fall of Rome was 1204. Im personally inclined to say 1453. Question though for any expert, what did the emperors of Nicaea call themselves? If they continued to call themselves roman emperors than shouldn't the Empire of Nicaea's 57 years of existence just be considered an era of the Byzantine Empire with a different capital?

I don't think calling yourself Roman emperor is enough. Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire tried to call themselves Roman Emperor but it didn't make it true. Even Sultan Mehmet II called himself Caesar of Rome.

The Empire of Nicaea was not the Roman Empire. It had a lot more in common with the old Attalid kingdom of Pergamon, a Greek kingdom which had existed in the same spot 1,400 years earlier.

 

[Colin]

From a very anglocentric view, the legions went home in 410 and Romano British society decayed quite rapidly.

 

[KittyKat]

I don't think calling yourself Roman emperor is enough. Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire tried to call themselves Roman Emperor but it didn't make it true. Even Sultan Mehmet II called himself Caesar of Rome.

The Empire of Nicaea was not the Roman Empire. It had a lot more in common with the old Attalid kingdom of Pergamon, a Greek kingdom which had existed in the same spot 1,400 years earlier.

The territory of Nicaea was held by an unbroken(somewhat) line of emperors who began in Rome, Charlemagne or the Ottomans cant claim that, the Byzantines and by extension the Nicaeaians can. Culturally I know they had little to do with Rome but politically it becomes alot more complicated which is why I asked the question.

 

[iori]

Other: 1204.

The true Roman Empire ended in 313 CE while the sovereignty continued on in the form of the Eastern Roman Empire, eventually ending in 1204 when the state ceased to exist; the Byzantine Empire (which I use to refer to the state founded in 1261) was in my opinion no more the Roman Empire than Italy would have been had Mussolini declared the state to be the Roman Empire.

 

[shillinger]

I agree with that date. The East became the center of the roman empire and Constantinople was the new capital. Long before Rome was sacked. Actually Mediolanum became capital of the western part already in 286.

After the Fall of the West, the roman empire was still huge and the most powerful empire of the western world. Most german Kings in the West were just client states from the roman point of view. But when the Arabs conquered Syria, Egypt and the lately reqonquered Africa, the empire shrinked to one of many mid-age kingdoms. Even if the Rhomanoi still called it the roman empire. Also the structure of the society changed massively with the Tagma-Organisation as mentioned above. Even if it was introduced a few decades later. But as an reaction to the loss of the provinces.

This is a serious break, which qualifies a succesor state since 629.

I agree with 629. being the year when the Roman Empire ceased to exist. After Heraclius it was a thoroughly Greek state rather than Roman, IMO.

 

[wildviper121]

476
Those Byzantines weren't true Romans!

In all seriousness, it's all really mucky and depends on what "fall" means. Roman culture still continues today, doesn't it? So before a specific answer can be found you need a more specific question. Any opinions are of course debatable.

But then again that's the point of this question, isn't it?

 

[Agricola]

476
Those Byzantines weren't true Romans!

Roman culture still continues today, doesn't it?

Like greek culture or babylonian culture does. So what?

The key question for me is, when was the ancient culture overwhelmed by the culture of the mid-age. Of course we have to define what these cultures mean. Until then the east-romans were of course true romans. No doubt about that!

As I stated above, the key date is 629 and the the following transformations of the ERE in a rather short timeframe. Afterwards it is a mid-age kingdom culturally. And the last ancient state disappeared.

 

[Sabot Cat]

But it didn't say "when did the Roman culture decline?" it asked when the Roman Empire fell, the sovereign state.

 

[Agricola]

But it didn't say "when did the Roman culture decline?" it asked when the Roman Empire fell, the sovereign state.

The sovereign state ceased to exist sometime in the late byzantine empire. Thats not my period of interest, but others did already discuss this question above.

I claim, that this is irrelevant. The much more important question is, when the romans were not longer romans, when you could call the empire not longer an empire and therefore the ancient age ended.

The answer is simple and obvious: 629!

Afterwards you may call it the byzantine empire. Even if this term is a later venetian invention. But until then it was undoubtly the Roman Empire.

 

[betrayor]

The earlierst you could call it is 1204,before that nothing happened that distrupted the continuity of the state.......

The lastest should be 1461 with the fall of trebizond,who can be considered one of the succesor states of the Roman empire when it fell in 1204.....

 

[Sabot Cat]

The sovereign state ceased to exist sometime in the late byzantine empire. Thats not my period of interest, but others did already discuss this question above.

I claim, that this is irrelevant. The much more important question is, when the romans were not longer romans, when you could call the empire not longer an empire and therefore the ancient age ended.

The answer is simple: 629!

Citizenship for a Roman is much the same as it is for an American: it is defined by the state one has loyalty to, not the language or the culture. Those living in what some term the "Byzantine Empire" called themselves Romans, called their state the Roman Empire, and had unbroken continuity with the state universally agreed upon to be the Roman Empire.

I'm sticking with 1453.

 

[Avrorrange]

I don't think calling yourself Roman emperor is enough. Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire tried to call themselves Roman Emperor but it didn't make it true. Even Sultan Mehmet II called himself Caesar of Rome.

The Empire of Nicaea was not the Roman Empire. It had a lot more in common with the old Attalid kingdom of Pergamon, a Greek kingdom which had existed in the same spot 1,400 years earlier.

This is like saying the Kingdom of Jerusalem isn't the Kingdom of Jerusalem after losing the city of Jerusalem to Saladin.