When did the Roman Empire Fall? A fun thread.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Uh huh. Got sources for Roman civilization dying in 27 BC? I'd love to learn. My degree in the Classics is somewhat old and any new ideas in the field are always welcome.

Rome was the Republic.

It was until 27 BC, yes.

[Old Tyrannia]

I am a chronic fence sitter, so my answer would have to be "it's complicated" or, perhaps, "all of the above." In my mind "fall of the Roman Empire" tends to call to mind the end of the Western Roman Empire, though.

[-Ocelot-]

Byzantine is the continuation of ancient Rome so when Constantinople fell, the Roman Empire came to an end.

With that being said, the idea of Rome persisted. Way after the fall of Constantinople, many nations aspired to be the "3rd Reich", such as Nazi Germany, the Russian Empire and even the Ottomans. Some would argue that Rome will never truly die because it's an unique idea. Judging from the HRE which was neither Holy nor Roman, everything is possible.

Not to be nitpicky, but Nazi ideology didn't see the Roman Empire as the First Reich. Instead, the Holy Roman Empire was the First Reich, the German Empire the Second Reich, and Nazi Germany was...the Third Reich.

Didn't know that! Makes sense considering the Germano-centrism of Nazi Germany.

[United Muscovite Nations]

When it decided to become Christian; so about 330 CE.

What is the reasoning behind this? The Roman state certainly didn't cease to exist.

[Definitely Not Trumptonium]

After the assassination of Marcus Aurelius when everything started falling apart. When the Praetorian Guard got too powerful became Rome itself. Although more officially perhaps with the beginning of Constantine's reign when the Empire became Christian and moved East.

Also two states "/administrative divisions" cannot be the same polity. At least the Commonwealth and Austria-Hungary had the same monarch.

[The New California Republic]

When it decided to become Christian; so about 330 CE.

What is the reasoning behind this? The Roman state certainly didn't cease to exist.

It continued to exist in name only. As soon as it adopted Christian values it ceased being "Roman", and the Christian shadow existence that remained began its long fade away. In fact, the adoption of Christianity can be argued to be a symptom of its decline, and not the cause as such.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

It continued to exist in name only. As soon as it adopted Christian values it ceased being "Roman", and the Christian shadow existence that remained began its long fade away. In fact, the adoption of Christianity can be argued to be a symptom of its decline, and not the cause as such.

Rome didn't cease being "Roman" when it stopped being a Republic.

[The New California Republic]

It continued to exist in name only. As soon as it adopted Christian values it ceased being "Roman", and the Christian shadow existence that remained began its long fade away. In fact, the adoption of Christianity can be argued to be a symptom of its decline, and not the cause as such.

Rome didn't cease being "Roman" when it stopped being a Republic.

Not what I said.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Not what I said.

It was only a comparison. Your remark is nonsensical, the Roman Empire didn't end when it adopted Christianity, since that's not how empires work. They don't cease when they change religion, ruler, capital, army, elites, etc.

[The New California Republic]

Not what I said.

It was only a comparison. Your remark is nonsensical, the Roman Empire didn't end when it adopted Christianity, since that's not how empires work. They don't cease when they change religion, ruler, capital, army, elites, etc.

Empires die when they adopt a cultural, moral and ethical system that is the complete antithesis of their own.

[Valrifell]

Rome lives on in our hearts ;_;

The only correct answer, tbh

[Asherahan]

Who the heck thinks the Roman Empire fell at 476 AD? The Eastern half was alive for like 1000 plus years more and even reconquered most of the Empire once or twice.

[The Greater Low Countries]

It was only a comparison. Your remark is nonsensical, the Roman Empire didn't end when it adopted Christianity, since that's not how empires work. They don't cease when they change religion, ruler, capital, army, elites, etc.

Empires die when they adopt a cultural, moral and ethical system that is the complete antithesis of their own.

So did America die when it switched from an isolationist policy during the first century of its existence to its interventionist policy in the 1900's?

[The New California Republic]

Empires die when they adopt a cultural, moral and ethical system that is the complete antithesis of their own.

So did America die when it switched from an isolationist policy during the first century of its existence to its interventionist policy in the 1900's?

Policy switch =/= entire cultural, moral and ethical system...

[Mostrov]

‎

[Vistulange]

It continued to exist in name only. As soon as it adopted Christian values it ceased being "Roman", and the Christian shadow existence that remained began its long fade away. In fact, the adoption of Christianity can be argued to be a symptom of its decline, and not the cause as such.

Rome didn't cease being "Roman" when it stopped being a Republic.

Institutionally, I don't think the Roman Empire ever stopped being a republic. It was - again, institutionally speaking - always a republic, with its Senate and titles pertaining to the Republic persisting for a very long time. I would need to check, however.

Practically speaking, though, it stopped being a Republic perhaps the day Octavian took the "throne" for himself and took upon the titles of Augustus and Princeps. I'm not debating that. Seeing I'll be writing a paper regarding Byzantine logistics soon, I might just peek into the Roman institutions, as well.

[Novus America]

Who the heck thinks the Roman Empire fell at 476 AD? The Eastern half was alive for like 1000 plus years more and even reconquered most of the Empire once or twice.

An Empire irretrievably split into two parts has fallen.
But that would put the date between 286 and 395.

[Veldias]

Majorian was the ultimus romanorum!

[Ostroeuropa]

When the romans offered dog meat in exchange for peoples children being sold into slavery despite being outnumbered.

[Nea Byzantia]

Who the heck thinks the Roman Empire fell at 476 AD? The Eastern half was alive for like 1000 plus years more and even reconquered most of the Empire once or twice.

All those ignorant Westerners, who would rather forget our glorious Eastern Roman Empire...

[United Muscovite Nations]

It was only a comparison. Your remark is nonsensical, the Roman Empire didn't end when it adopted Christianity, since that's not how empires work. They don't cease when they change religion, ruler, capital, army, elites, etc.

Empires die when they adopt a cultural, moral and ethical system that is the complete antithesis of their own.

Then Rome had ceased being Rome for a long time before. Cultures change over time.

Also, did the United States cease to be the United States during the cultural changes of the 20th century?

[Novus America]

Rome didn't cease being "Roman" when it stopped being a Republic.

Institutionally, I don't think the Roman Empire ever stopped being a republic. It was - again, institutionally speaking - always a republic, with its Senate and titles pertaining to the Republic persisting for a very long time. I would need to check, however.

Practically speaking, though, it stopped being a Republic perhaps the day Octavian took the "throne" for himself and took upon the titles of Augustus and Princeps. I'm not debating that. Seeing I'll be writing a paper regarding Byzantine logistics soon, I might just peek into the Roman institutions, as well.

De Jure, the Roman Empire remained a republic. Officially the Emperor was elected by the Senate and could be removed by the Senate.

This even lasted in the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire for a time, though it was eventually abandoned as the Senate was largely reduced to a honorary society in the ERE.

Emperor was officially a elected position, not a hereditary rank.

So it did not always pass on from father to first born son, though the Senate would often (but not always) choose the previous Emperor’s appointed heir (often adopted rather than by birth) as the new Emperor when one died.

So it became effectively, though not officially, often an inherited position.
At least before the split.

This lasted throughout the United Empire, and even officially survived in the East for a while, though the ERE eventually dropped the pretense of the election once the Senate had become completely powerless.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What is the reasoning behind this? The Roman state certainly didn't cease to exist.

It continued to exist in name only. As soon as it adopted Christian values it ceased being "Roman", and the Christian shadow existence that remained began its long fade away. In fact, the adoption of Christianity can be argued to be a symptom of its decline, and not the cause as such.

Many recent historians would argue that Rome didn't decline before it fell.

[Nea Byzantia]

Institutionally, I don't think the Roman Empire ever stopped being a republic. It was - again, institutionally speaking - always a republic, with its Senate and titles pertaining to the Republic persisting for a very long time. I would need to check, however.

Practically speaking, though, it stopped being a Republic perhaps the day Octavian took the "throne" for himself and took upon the titles of Augustus and Princeps. I'm not debating that. Seeing I'll be writing a paper regarding Byzantine logistics soon, I might just peek into the Roman institutions, as well.

De Jure, the Roman Empire remained a republic. Officially the Emperor was elected by the Senate and could be removed by the Senate.

This even lasted in the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire for a time, though it was eventually abandoned as the Senate was largely reduced to a honorary society in the ERE.

Emperor was officially a elected position, not a hereditary rank.

So it did not always pass on from father to first born son, though the Senate would often (but not always) choose the previous Emperor’s appointed heir (often adopted rather than by birth) as the new Emperor when one died.

So it became effectively, though not officially, often an inherited position.
At least before the split.

This lasted throughout the United Empire, and even officially survived in the East for a while, though the ERE eventually dropped the pretense of the election once the Senate had become completely powerless.

This is mostly accurate; but even by the Augustan Principate, the Senate essentially became an aristocratic social club. It was only kept around to rubber stamp the ascension of the Emperor; because technically the Republican Constitution was never done away with.

[Novus America]

It continued to exist in name only. As soon as it adopted Christian values it ceased being "Roman", and the Christian shadow existence that remained began its long fade away. In fact, the adoption of Christianity can be argued to be a symptom of its decline, and not the cause as such.

Many recent historians would argue that Rome didn't decline before it fell.

What are you using as the fall date?
If you are using 1204 or 1453, the ERE certainly had declined.
By the late 1100s the ERE had become a sad, pale shadow of what it had once been.