When did the Roman Empire Fall? A fun thread.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You have your history confused, Odoacer didn't seize or sack Rome, he, as an officer in the Roman Army, deposed Romulus Augustus and petitioned the Emperor Zeno for the recognition of his authority after his troops named him King of Italy.

Legal entities are social constructs, if the people in your territory believe you to be the sole legitimate authority, then that is the case.

Fair enough that I made a mistake there.
But I do agree 476 is a bad date to mark the end of the Roman Empire.

He did however seize power and only ask for recognition after, that does not happen in a properly functioning state.

However states are much MORE than just a social construct, obviously.
If not any self proclaimed micro nation or pretender would be a state.

People in both North and South Korea consider themselves Korean.
But Korea does not exist as one state.
There are still self proclaimed Yugoslavs, but Yugoslavia does not exist as a state at all.

It had happened many times in Roman history, even before you had more than one emperor, it wasn't that unusual in the Roman Empire to have transitions where the army deposes the Emperor. There were two times in Roman history (both of them before Diocletian created the Tetrarchy) where you had one year where it happened 4 or more times (Year of Four Emperors and Year of Five Emperors). It happened like 20 or 30 times in the Crisis of the Third Century.

If the people holding power considered themselves to be one state, it would become inevitable that they would eventually exist as one state, in the case of the Roman Empire, the people holding power considered themselves one state, which is why they cooperated so closely. If you wanted to become Emperor legally in East or West, you had to get the approval of the reigning Emperor from the other half of the Empire, and there were times where the Eastern Emperor deposed Western pretenders who failed to get this recognition.

[Ifreann]

The rape of the Sabine women was the end of Rome. Why couldn't you have kept Rome pure, Romulus?

Nothing pure about murdering your brother because he mocked your shitty fence.

If Remus was right we'd be talking about the Reman Empire.

[Novus America]

Fair enough that I made a mistake there.
But I do agree 476 is a bad date to mark the end of the Roman Empire.

He did however seize power and only ask for recognition after, that does not happen in a properly functioning state.

However states are much MORE than just a social construct, obviously.
If not any self proclaimed micro nation or pretender would be a state.

People in both North and South Korea consider themselves Korean.
But Korea does not exist as one state.
There are still self proclaimed Yugoslavs, but Yugoslavia does not exist as a state at all.

It had happened many times in Roman history, even before you had more than one emperor, it wasn't that unusual in the Roman Empire to have transitions where the army deposes the Emperor. There were two times in Roman history (both of them before Diocletian created the Tetrarchy) where you had one year where it happened 4 or more times (Year of Four Emperors and Year of Five Emperors). It happened like 20 or 30 times in the Crisis of the Third Century.

If the people holding power considered themselves to be one state, it would become inevitable that they would eventually exist as one state, in the case of the Roman Empire, the people holding power considered themselves one state, which is why they cooperated so closely. If you wanted to become Emperor legally in East or West, you had to get the approval of the reigning Emperor from the other half of the Empire, and there were times where the Eastern Emperor deposed Western pretenders who failed to get this recognition.

Again the “cooperation” was just as often outright warfare as actual cooperation.
Sure they sometimes worked together. Just as often did not.

The Venetians and ERE did the same deal of close cooperation at times to outright war at times.

Sure you could say the crisis of the 3rd century was actually the end, but it did reunite under one state several times. When it stopped reuniting it was dead.

And Odoacer did say his short lived state was a vassal if the ERE, but he controlled on a small part of the west and this did not last.

And both the rulers of both Koreas claim the right to rule Korea as one state. But obviously it is not and will not actually be so.

[Mostrov]

‎

[United Muscovite Nations]

It had happened many times in Roman history, even before you had more than one emperor, it wasn't that unusual in the Roman Empire to have transitions where the army deposes the Emperor. There were two times in Roman history (both of them before Diocletian created the Tetrarchy) where you had one year where it happened 4 or more times (Year of Four Emperors and Year of Five Emperors). It happened like 20 or 30 times in the Crisis of the Third Century.

If the people holding power considered themselves to be one state, it would become inevitable that they would eventually exist as one state, in the case of the Roman Empire, the people holding power considered themselves one state, which is why they cooperated so closely. If you wanted to become Emperor legally in East or West, you had to get the approval of the reigning Emperor from the other half of the Empire, and there were times where the Eastern Emperor deposed Western pretenders who failed to get this recognition.

Again the “cooperation” was just as often outright warfare as actual cooperation.
Sure they sometimes worked together. Just as often did not.

The Venetians and ERE did the same deal of close cooperation at times to outright war at times.

Sure you could say the crisis of the 3rd century was actually the end, but it did reunite under one state several times. When it stopped reuniting it was dead.

And Odoacer did say his short lived state was a vassal if the ERE, but he controlled on a small part of the west and this did not last.

And both the rulers of both Koreas claim the right to rule Korea as one state. But obviously it is not and will not actually be so.

Name 1 time after the 395 split where the two fought a war against each other.

Neither of the Roman Emperors claimed to be sole Emperor of the empire, they claimed to each be emperors of a part of the Roman Empire, ruling jointly, and they acted like it too.

[Novus America]

Again the “cooperation” was just as often outright warfare as actual cooperation.
Sure they sometimes worked together. Just as often did not.

The Venetians and ERE did the same deal of close cooperation at times to outright war at times.

Sure you could say the crisis of the 3rd century was actually the end, but it did reunite under one state several times. When it stopped reuniting it was dead.

And Odoacer did say his short lived state was a vassal if the ERE, but he controlled on a small part of the west and this did not last.

And both the rulers of both Koreas claim the right to rule Korea as one state. But obviously it is not and will not actually be so.

Name 1 time after the 395 split where the two fought a war against each other.

Neither of the Roman Emperors claimed to be sole Emperor of the empire, they claimed to each be emperors of a part of the Roman Empire, ruling jointly, and they acted like it too.

[Novus America]

Again the “cooperation” was just as often outright warfare as actual cooperation.
Sure they sometimes worked together. Just as often did not.

The Venetians and ERE did the same deal of close cooperation at times to outright war at times.

Sure you could say the crisis of the 3rd century was actually the end, but it did reunite under one state several times. When it stopped reuniting it was dead.

And Odoacer did say his short lived state was a vassal if the ERE, but he controlled on a small part of the west and this did not last.

And both the rulers of both Koreas claim the right to rule Korea as one state. But obviously it is not and will not actually be so.

Name 1 time after the 395 split where the two fought a war against each other.

Neither of the Roman Emperors claimed to be sole Emperor of the empire, they claimed to each be emperors of a part of the Roman Empire, ruling jointly, and they acted like it too.

Which is an argument for it collapsing before 395.
The early 300s with the collapse of the tetrarchy might be a better date then.

Both Stilicho and Constantius III planned campaigns agains the ERE after 395.
Admittedly the increasing collapsing and dysfunctional western Roman Empire was not well suited to fight, as it was being overrun in barbarian invasions and the ERE provided little help.

So no they did not act much of the the time.
They more often acted as rulers of different states.

The empire had become fragrantly and it dod not properly function as a single entity.

[First American Empire]

June 26th, 363.

^^^

If only Emperor Julian had lived.

[Telconi]

Again the “cooperation” was just as often outright warfare as actual cooperation.
Sure they sometimes worked together. Just as often did not.

The Venetians and ERE did the same deal of close cooperation at times to outright war at times.

Sure you could say the crisis of the 3rd century was actually the end, but it did reunite under one state several times. When it stopped reuniting it was dead.

And Odoacer did say his short lived state was a vassal if the ERE, but he controlled on a small part of the west and this did not last.

And both the rulers of both Koreas claim the right to rule Korea as one state. But obviously it is not and will not actually be so.

Name 1 time after the 395 split where the two fought a war against each other.

Neither of the Roman Emperors claimed to be sole Emperor of the empire, they claimed to each be emperors of a part of the Roman Empire, ruling jointly, and they acted like it too.

But naming aside, what made the two empires a single state? They didn't share laws, they didn't share government, they didn't share administration. They were functionally two very friendly states.

[Third Asopia]

Well since Liechtenstein still exists...
I would say it still exists. I don't know though.

[Conserative Morality]

Name 1 time after the 395 split where the two fought a war against each other.

423.

[The Archregimancy]

I've been lurking in this thread, but have been too busy to post due to RL issues taking priority, but I'm currently sitting in an airport, so...

There's no correct answer to the question 'when did the Roman Empire fall?' The Roman Empire never 'fell' as such, it simply mutated over time, as any institution that lasts over 1000 years will do. To see the history of the Roman Empire as one of a decline and final fall has been a common trope in the Western popular imagination since Gibbon, but it masks an ongoing process of evolution and cultural innovation. In that sense it mirrors a tendency to dismiss any part of Egyptian civilisation post-dating Ramesses XI (last pharaoh of the New Kingdom) as not 'real' Egypt, even though that civilisation still had over 1000 years of dynamic innovation and change to run.

Even the conquest of Constantinople didn't necessarily appear to be the end of the Roman Empire to contemporaries. Many senior Byzantines (including the new Patriarch) were prepared to set aside centuries of association between Orthodoxy and the Imperial ideal to - at least initially - accept Mehmed II as a legitimate Roman emperor, which is why he specifically took the title Kayser-i Rûm ('Caesar of Rome') in order to strengthen his legitimacy, and why the Ottomans continued to use that title. We don't take that view today, of course, but modern historiography isn't necessarily always a useful guide to contemporary perception.

We can look at certain key dates in the evolution of the history of the Roman state as showing important points where gradual evolution gives way to a recognisable sudden shift, but looking for a specific single point in time and declaring it as 'this is the moment Rome fell!' is unhelpful.



For what it's worth, there are also still two political entities whose continued independence and temporal power (which in both cases exists separately from their spiritual power) at least partly rests on the legitimacy provided by their establishment during the Roman Empire, and the open support granted to those institutions by Roman emperors. These are the Holy See in Rome and the Monastic Republic of Mount Athos in northern Greece.

No. Mount Athos never claimed to be the successor state of Roman Empire.

Well then, it's just as well that I never stated that it did.

Perhaps you'd care to read that last part of my post again so you can perhaps better understand the point I was actually making?

[The Archregimancy]

Name 1 time after the 395 split where the two fought a war against each other.

Your basic point is sound, but you've perhaps chosen a poor counter-argument with which to make the point.

There are certainly examples of direct military action against the West post-395, such as Theodosius II's war against Johannes in 425, and Leo I's backing of Julius Nepos's attack on Ravenna to depose Glycerius in 474.

However, note that in both of the above cases, the invasions of the West were undertaken by the forces of the East to depose rulers that Constantinople considered to be usurpers in order to restore/raise to the throne legitimate emperors who could rule as colleagues (at least hypothetically) with their eastern counterparts; which supports your broader point.

[Auristania]

An empire with two emperors is illogical by its very nature.

De facto though the situation was quite different. It ceased to actually de facto work as a single empire after 395.

Roman Republic 500 BC to 0 BC was ruled by 2 Consuls, 6 Praetors, 10 Tribunes, Quaestors, Aediles etc etc etc. There is nothing Illogical about a state ruled by many officers.

[Novus America]

An empire with two emperors is illogical by its very nature.

De facto though the situation was quite different. It ceased to actually de facto work as a single empire after 395.

Roman Republic 500 BC to 0 BC was ruled by 2 Consuls, 6 Praetors, 10 Tribunes, Quaestors, Aediles etc etc etc. There is nothing Illogical about a state ruled by many officers.

Sure, you can have more than one person ruling, but an Emperor a supreme ruler. Having more than one leader is possible but you should not give them the rank of Emperor, which was designed to be for only one person.

[Ifreann]

Roman Republic 500 BC to 0 BC was ruled by 2 Consuls, 6 Praetors, 10 Tribunes, Quaestors, Aediles etc etc etc. There is nothing Illogical about a state ruled by many officers.

Sure, you can have more than one person ruling, but an Emperor a supreme ruler. Having more than one leader is possible but you should not give them the rank of Emperor, which was designed to be for only one person.

Why not? Ranks and titles are all made up, we can use them any way we want. And it's not like any emperor of Rome ever actually was an emperor. That's the word we use now. Roman emperors were Augustus and Caesar. Where is it written that a state can only have one Augustus or one Caesar?

[Novus America]

Sure, you can have more than one person ruling, but an Emperor a supreme ruler. Having more than one leader is possible but you should not give them the rank of Emperor, which was designed to be for only one person.

Why not? Ranks and titles are all made up, we can use them any way we want. And it's not like any emperor of Rome ever actually was an emperor. That's the word we use now. Roman emperors were Augustus and Caesar. Where is it written that a state can only have one Augustus or one Caesar?

Actually the title was “imperator” which means commander and in chief, and Princeps was another title which of course means the first citizen.

Sure they could have completely restricted the system with a clear separation of powers and changed the powers associated with the titles, but they did not.

Two people with no real limits on their power besides who can coup and kill the other obviously is not a recipe for stability.

[Skarten]

June 26th, 363.

^^^

If only Emperor Julian had lived.

Julian's death was quite an irony, if i do say so myself. It was deserved that this was the way he ended, he had no one to blame but himself. Also, he only lost the campaign because of him making one stupid decision after the other

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

6 August 1806, with the abdication of Francis II as Holy Roman Emperor.

[Risottia]

Sure, you can have more than one person ruling, but an Emperor a supreme ruler. Having more than one leader is possible but you should not give them the rank of Emperor, which was designed to be for only one person.

Not quite. IMPERATOR is a title designed for a triumphant commander. Nothing barred having more than a triumphant commander, and Augustus himself made a point of showing that he was just a "primus inter pares" (his peers being the senators) to avoid being considered a monarch (REX), - which is what fueled the conspiration against his uncle.
You're thinking of the Byzantine use of αὐτοκράτωρ - although Hellenistic authors use that to translate both DICTATOR and IMPERATOR.

[Phoenicaea]

^ formally, the 'head of state' in republican rome (the rome ruled with 2 consules, lasting formally past after octavianus augustus) was the religious chief, called 'pontifex'.

this pontifex maximum, chairman of the assembly and responsible for religious offers, had solved in the paper the matter of the need for a single person as to represent the nation.

being nowadays, in most countries the head of the state is either a monarch or the president of the republic, whose disposal goernment is not, this is not unusual.

of course the counsules, and the emperor after, de facto ruled. after the discussion, the end of the roman empire could be fairly said, for me, either in 476 ad, or in 410 ad.

[Farnhamia]

Today.

[Nea Byzantia]

Today.

Amen.

[Risottia]

^ formally, the 'head of state' in republican rome (the rome ruled with 2 consules, lasting formally past after octavianus augustus) was the religious chief, called 'pontifex'.

this pontifex maximum, chairman of the assembly and responsible for religious offers, had solved in the paper the matter of the need for a single person as to represent the nation.

being nowadays, ...

Nowadays there is a head of state whose title is "PONTIFEX". He lives in Rome.

[Hurdergaryp]

^ formally, the 'head of state' in republican rome (the rome ruled with 2 consules, lasting formally past after octavianus augustus) was the religious chief, called 'pontifex'.

this pontifex maximum, chairman of the assembly and responsible for religious offers, had solved in the paper the matter of the need for a single person as to represent the nation.

being nowadays, ...

Nowadays there is a head of state whose title is "PONTIFEX". He lives in Rome.

His importance should be obvious, for he wears the FANCY HAT.