When did the Roman Empire Fall? A fun thread.

[Minachia]

Finland is the only true heir to Rome. This is an indisputable historical fact.

(Image)

It is disputable; Russia's claim to the Eastern Roman Empire is the same as Germany's claim to the West- both were completely fake and unfounded.
Finland's claim is based off of Russia's, so Finland's is invalid.

[Kowani]

Finland is the only true heir to Rome. This is an indisputable historical fact.

(Image)

It is disputable; Russia's claim to the Eastern Roman Empire is the same as Germany's claim to the West- both were completely fake and unfounded.
Finland's claim is based off of Russia's, so Finland's is invalid.

Eh, Russia’s claim has something to do with Orthodox Christianity, I believe. Finland? No fuckin’ clue.

[Duhon]

Finland is the only true heir to Rome. This is an indisputable historical fact.

(Image)

The Suomi have no king.

[Conserative Morality]

Finland is the only true heir to Rome. This is an indisputable historical fact.

(Image)

The Suomi have no king.

Neither did Rome. =^^^^^)

[Genivaria]

363 AD the year when the Last True Emperor Julian died, the last follower of the true Roman faith.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The Suomi have no king.

Neither did Rome. =^^^^^)

The years between 753 BCE and 509 BCE disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Kingdom

[Duhon]

The Suomi have no king.

Neither did Rome. =^^^^^)

The Emperors -- and I know you'll suss me on how they weren't monarchs till the Dominate, but I don't care -- were close enough.

[Bears Armed]

Cultural evolution and perceived cultural continuity are so subjective as to not really be that much use, I think. I'd be inclined to go with 1453, as if I recall correctly Trebizond's rulers had relinquished the title of Emperor of the Romans well over a century before 1461.

I see your point about 1204, but I don't necessarily think a change in political institutions is enough to completely disqualify the later Byzantines from being classed as the Roman Empire. There was, after all, some degree of continuity in terms of rulers, as it was Byzantine aristocracy who refounded the Roman Empire after their spell in Nicaea - a different dynasty than the one which had previously ruled, sure, but we don't generally proclaim that nations have fallen whenever the ruling dynasty changes. Politically, they had proclaimed themselves Romans. Culturally - despite my objection to culture as the deciding factor - surely they can't have been that different in 1261 than they were in 1204, aside from being shaped by the experiences of the Fourth Crusade and the following decades.

This, agreed.

[Nea Byzantia]

I know that certain elite aristocratic families in Constantinople benefited greatly from the Ottoman takeover - I'm referring of course to the Phanariots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanariotes); in particular, the Houses Kantakouzenos and Mavrokordatos. These however, were a tiny minority (but a very influential one, in Late Byzantium). Furthermore, the Imperial Regime in Constantinople had lost a lot of legitimacy with its People because of its capitulations to the Roman Papacy, in return for promises of military aid; these acts of Uniaitism, especially in the final decades of the Empire were seen as the highest treason by the strongly Greek Orthodox population; to the point that some said "Better the Turban of the Sultan; than the Tiara of the Pope". People had grown tired of the pushiness of the Latins, the Crusaders, and their Uniate mouthpieces in the Imperial elite, in the politics and religious affairs of the Empire; and it was clear, especially by the 15th century, that the Emperor in Constantinople, was not only not going to do anything about it; but was thoroughly "in bed" with such people himself.

All that being said, the pro-Ottoman camp wasn't what brought down the Empire, necessarily. Rather, it was a loss of faith in the traditional mores of the Empire. People no longer believed the Emperor in Constantinople was worth listening to, or for that matter, saving - the Romans had become mere spectators in the affairs of their own Empire; watching foreigners and other Great Powers decide their political fate for them; essentially. One can argue when exactly this state of affairs (which still afflicts modern Greece to this very day) came into being. Personally, I would point to the Fourth Crusade as the beginning f this. It was by no means too late for the Empire; even then. They did recover some hope in 1261, when Constantinople was liberated from the Latins; however, it was thrown away when Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos humiliated the Empire; and betrayed the trust of his People, by grovelling at the Pope's feet, and proclaiming himself a Catholic, in return for military aid. This, and the continued unfettered meddling of the Venetians, Genoese, and small Crusader Warlords spread throughout the Aegean, ultimately brought the Empire to its knees - for the vile Turks to scoop up.

Hold up, there. That's a lot of assumptions made.

How do we know that a loss of faith in the "traditional mores of the Empire" were the cause of the collapse of the Empire? You seem to be establishing a causal link between this loss of faith, and the collapse of the Empire. The collapse of the Empire can be attributed to a great number of things, and perhaps among them is the loss of motivation to fight on, but I have not seen sources indicating such.

Arguably, the Empire stopped being an Empire on 1204, when the crusaders sacked Constantinople - from then on, the Empire never really got back into shape even after the Palaiologos restoration. I also can't find anything on Michael VIII Palaiologos converting to Catholicism, by the way. You sure that's not revisionism?

But yes, the Genoese, Venetians, and the Ottomans basically manipulated the politics of the Empire at this stage, you've got that right. At that point, the Empire was little more than a vassal.

He may have backed away from it after awhile. And my point was just to say that the Romans themselves lost their motivation to fight because the elites sold them down the river, and gave up on the traditional religion. It killed the Empire from within, I would argue.

[Bears Armed]

because the elites sold them down the river, and gave up on the traditional religion. It killed the Empire from within, I would argue.

DIdn't "the elites"only make Christianity legal, and then the 'official' religion, after a large proportion of the empire's non-'elite' people -- especially in the eastern half -- had already adopted it? I remember reading somewhere, years ago, that a faction in the senate at Rome actually tried holding on to the old traditions for a while after that... and if it had only been "the elites" behind that policy then shouldn't Julian's attempt at reversing the change have received more obvious public support?

[Nea Byzantia]

because the elites sold them down the river, and gave up on the traditional religion. It killed the Empire from within, I would argue.

DIdn't "the elites"only make Christianity legal, and then the 'official' religion, after a large proportion of the empire's non-'elite' people -- especially in the eastern half -- had already adopted it? I remember reading somewhere, years ago, that a faction in the senate at Rome actually tried holding on to the old traditions for a while after that... and if it had only been "the elites" behind that policy then shouldn't Julian's attempt at reversing the change have received more obvious public support?

I'm talking about the Fall of the Eastern Roman Empire...That's literally 1,000 years after the era you're talking about!

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

DIdn't "the elites"only make Christianity legal, and then the 'official' religion, after a large proportion of the empire's non-'elite' people -- especially in the eastern half -- had already adopted it? I remember reading somewhere, years ago, that a faction in the senate at Rome actually tried holding on to the old traditions for a while after that... and if it had only been "the elites" behind that policy then shouldn't Julian's attempt at reversing the change have received more obvious public support?

I'm talking about the Fall of the Eastern Roman Empire...That's literally 1,000 years after the era you're talking about!

Byzantium didn't give up on its traditional religion, and the elites had been selling the people out for centuries by that point.

[Nea Byzantia]

I'm talking about the Fall of the Eastern Roman Empire...That's literally 1,000 years after the era you're talking about!

Byzantium didn't give up on its traditional religion, and the elites had been selling the people out for centuries by that point.

The elites had.

[Valrifell]

because the elites sold them down the river, and gave up on the traditional religion. It killed the Empire from within, I would argue.

DIdn't "the elites"only make Christianity legal, and then the 'official' religion, after a large proportion of the empire's non-'elite' people -- especially in the eastern half -- had already adopted it? I remember reading somewhere, years ago, that a faction in the senate at Rome actually tried holding on to the old traditions for a while after that... and if it had only been "the elites" behind that policy then shouldn't Julian's attempt at reversing the change have received more obvious public support?

Julian the Apostate was only one emperor removed from Constantine the Great and attempted to bring back Roman paganism with a neoplatonic twist.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Byzantium didn't give up on its traditional religion, and the elites had been selling the people out for centuries by that point.

The elites had.

I'd like a citation for this.

[Phoenicaea]

this is a so good thread. i undestrand all the choices, i m traditional and so i prefer the classical 476 ad ending.

i agree with the argument of the sight on the west has to be a prejudice, that 'after all romans were focused on the east, while posterity watches at the west'.

nevrrheless, i wouldn t rule about the classical fall of 476 ad, and in case, i would even anticipate the fall. as good enlighment follower, i would anticipate it.

reason is the 'overthrown' of 476 ad wasn t, supposedly, a great thing for contemporary man. the emperor title had become a piece of sheet before, and rome 'fell' in its rule in invasions.

i agree with previous posts about the fall of Byzantium and the crusades, good at same.

for flavour, i would propose the edict against paganism as an anticipated claim for the fall of the empire, either this or even the laws (Ulpianus code) that divided landowners and serfs.

if i would tie Rome and Byzantium, i would let them separated because the fall of the capital has to be the historical pillar for an empire, can t split empire and the capital.

in cas i would consider Byzantium, i would say the 1204 ad, in an effort to anticipate it, even if fall of Byzantium in xvth century was a great event for cntemporary man.

[Conserative Morality]

DIdn't "the elites"only make Christianity legal, and then the 'official' religion, after a large proportion of the empire's non-'elite' people -- especially in the eastern half -- had already adopted it?

At the time of Constantine I's legalization and effective (though not official) adoption of Christianity and persecution of paganism, Christian population of the Empire is estimated around ~10%.

I remember reading somewhere, years ago, that a faction in the senate at Rome actually tried holding on to the old traditions for a while after that... and if it had only been "the elites" behind that policy then shouldn't Julian's attempt at reversing the change have received more obvious public support?

Julian's attempt at reversing the change did receive obvious public support, m80. But the upper ranks had already been gutted of pagans; even Julian was only a pagan because he was, as his epithet says, an apostate from Christianity. False charges, denial of offices, the rampant looting of pagan temples and suppression of pagan practices had all taken their toll on the aristocracy's willingness to hang on to a religion without precepts after some fifty years. So when he died, the office of Emperor went back to the Christians.

[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.

[Phoenicaea]

..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..

i would say a thing about this specific topic of the previous post. i agree that, to see it merely as a decline is biased, and it is a particularist aprroach that misrepresent events.

also because of archeology and documents, the view has developed. a good reason is you can t reasonably find a 'decline' lasting two centuries and half, for all known world.

neverheless, i claim we shouldn t abandon 'enlightment', classical apporoach. in that ages, there was a dramatic decline and a fall, even if it was inconstant in cities and centuries.

so, i would say that, as a frame, 'enlightement' approach has to be still right view, even if not so rude and simple as before thought. there was a trespass in eras, there was also decline.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Earlier in the thread, a number of people said that the Roman Empire ceased to be one polity after the division of 395. I responded to this by saying that they maintained a common culture, common political life, common form of of administration etc. However, there was one thing I forgot to mention that backs up that the Eastern and Western Roman Empires continued to function as one empire, and that is that their military structure was shared and fluid. The two considered themselves the same empire, and acted as such in administration, the most obvious example was that, following the defeat of the Eastern Roman field army in Thrace under the Emperor Valens in 378, the Western Emperor Gratian transferred the command of the Field Army of Illyricum, along with its commander, to the administration of the Eastern Emperor, then Theodosius. That's more than a simple alliance, they were transferred, in whole, to the other division, and remained there for several years before being transferred back to Western command. That is evidence of a far more significant bond between the two divisions than would be accounted for if they were not considered the same polity.

[Novus America]

Earlier in the thread, a number of people said that the Roman Empire ceased to be one polity after the division of 395. I responded to this by saying that they maintained a common culture, common political life, common form of of administration etc. However, there was one thing I forgot to mention that backs up that the Eastern and Western Roman Empires continued to function as one empire, and that is that their military structure was shared and fluid. The two considered themselves the same empire, and acted as such in administration, the most obvious example was that, following the defeat of the Eastern Roman field army in Thrace under the Emperor Valens in 378, the Western Emperor Gratian transferred the command of the Field Army of Illyricum, along with its commander, to the administration of the Eastern Emperor, then Theodosius. That's more than a simple alliance, they were transferred, in whole, to the other division, and remained there for several years before being transferred back to Western command. That is evidence of a far more significant bond between the two divisions than would be accounted for if they were not considered the same polity.

378 Is before 395. After 395 such shared structures ceased to function.
Even before 395 they spent more time fighting each other than fighting common enemies.
You are ignoring the warfare between East and West in the 300s.

But sure at times during the 300s it did function as a common polity of sorts (though just as often it did not). After 395 this however had come to a final end.
286 being the end is one argument, and your 378 comment can be used to counter that.
But it means nothing to the 395 argument because 395 was after 378.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Earlier in the thread, a number of people said that the Roman Empire ceased to be one polity after the division of 395. I responded to this by saying that they maintained a common culture, common political life, common form of of administration etc. However, there was one thing I forgot to mention that backs up that the Eastern and Western Roman Empires continued to function as one empire, and that is that their military structure was shared and fluid. The two considered themselves the same empire, and acted as such in administration, the most obvious example was that, following the defeat of the Eastern Roman field army in Thrace under the Emperor Valens in 378, the Western Emperor Gratian transferred the command of the Field Army of Illyricum, along with its commander, to the administration of the Eastern Emperor, then Theodosius. That's more than a simple alliance, they were transferred, in whole, to the other division, and remained there for several years before being transferred back to Western command. That is evidence of a far more significant bond between the two divisions than would be accounted for if they were not considered the same polity.

378 Is before 395. After 395 such shared structures ceased to function.
Even before 395 they spent more time fighting each other than fighting common enemies.
You are ignoring the warfare between East and West in the 300s.

But sure at times during the 300s it did function as a common polity of sorts (though just as often it did not). After 395 this however had come to a final end.
286 being the end is one argument, and your 378 comment can be used to counter that.
But it means nothing to the 395 argument because 395 was after 378.

Not true, that was only an example, and many military formations continued to have their commands switched, joint military operations occurred, and the Eastern Emperor even appointed the Western Emperor a few times.

[Novus America]

378 Is before 395. After 395 such shared structures ceased to function.
Even before 395 they spent more time fighting each other than fighting common enemies.
You are ignoring the warfare between East and West in the 300s.

But sure at times during the 300s it did function as a common polity of sorts (though just as often it did not). After 395 this however had come to a final end.
286 being the end is one argument, and your 378 comment can be used to counter that.
But it means nothing to the 395 argument because 395 was after 378.

Not true, that was only an example, and many military formations continued to have their commands switched, joint military operations occurred, and the Eastern Emperor even appointed the Western Emperor a few times.

Do you have documentation supporting this was common after 395?
And even before 395 the two sometimes worked together true, but spent just as much time fighting each other.
The system did not create a workable government.
And obviously would not.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not true, that was only an example, and many military formations continued to have their commands switched, joint military operations occurred, and the Eastern Emperor even appointed the Western Emperor a few times.

Do you have documentation supporting this was common after 395?
And even before 395 the two sometimes worked together true, but spent just as much time fighting each other.
The system did not create a workable government.
And obviously would not.

Yes, for example, the joint offensive in North Africa in 464(?) and that the Eastern Emperor appointed a general to be Roman Emperor, and that the position of Western Emperor could only be abolished in the West by the Eastern Emperor's decree making the barbarians regents in Italy in his name. All of this serves as evidence that it wasn't two empires, but one empire with two emperors.

[Cappuccina]

Do you have documentation supporting this was common after 395?
And even before 395 the two sometimes worked together true, but spent just as much time fighting each other.
The system did not create a workable government.
And obviously would not.

Yes, for example, the joint offensive in North Africa in 464(?) and that the Eastern Emperor appointed a general to be Roman Emperor, and that the position of Western Emperor could only be abolished in the West by the Eastern Emperor's decree making the barbarians regents in Italy in his name. All of this serves as evidence that it wasn't two empires, but one empire with two emperors.

Indeed, Byzantium just happened to be the seat of the Roman government, as Rome had since fallen in relevance and prestige.