When did the Roman Empire Fall? A fun thread.

[Hurdergaryp]

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.

Rome, once a magnificent city with about one million inhabitants, only had approximately ten thousand wretches dwelling amidst the crumbling ruins once the collapse was complete.

[Novus America]

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.

An empire with two emperors is illogical by its very nature.
And the Western Emperor was abolished and there was nothing that the ERE could do to stop it.
Showing the empire had ceased to function as one unit.
Sure the ERE Emperors claimed it, but claiming something and having it are different tings.

And do you have any source about this instance in 464?
Plus two states that throng together is not the same thing as de facto joint administration.

I am talking de facto, not de jure.

De jure, according to the ERE emperors at least yes, it did last until the 1400s.

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

[Nazis in Space]

On June 12th, 1946, with the abdiction of King Umberto II.

[Hurdergaryp]

On June 12th, 1946, with the abdiction of King Umberto II.

*abdication

Also, bring me to your dealer, for clearly he has many wondrous substances to offer.

[Auristania]

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. Even Popes merely demand to chose and crown the Emperor. Few popes have claimed to be Caesar personally.

Russian Empire, Holy Roman Empire, British Empire etc all claim to be Successor states of Rome. Haggle about the legitimacy of those claims. Athos and Vatican have never even claimed to be successors

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

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.

[Conserative Morality]

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.

Remus didn't think Romulus could defend his city with such a shitty border. Romulus just showed him the meaning of 'border patrol'. =^)

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Anyhoo, the Roman Empire as we know of it properly ended with the Fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire, while still channeling the Legacy of Rome and the only state to ever exist with the right to said legacy, became a distinct and separate entity after that: the Byzantine Empire. This ended (unfortunately) in 1453.

[United Muscovite Nations]

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.

An empire with two emperors is illogical by its very nature.
And the Western Emperor was abolished and there was nothing that the ERE could do to stop it.
Showing the empire had ceased to function as one unit.
Sure the ERE Emperors claimed it, but claiming something and having it are different tings.

And do you have any source about this instance in 464?
Plus two states that throng together is not the same thing as de facto joint administration.

I am talking de facto, not de jure.

De jure, according to the ERE emperors at least yes, it did last until the 1400s.

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

The Romans certainly didn't feel like it was illogical, there have been many states with more than one head of state, you think it's illogical only because no country in recent history had such a system.

Odoacer at least nominally accepted the rule of the Eastern Emperors.

Any history of the late Roman Empire should cover the expedition to North Africa to restore the rule of the Western Emperor sufficiently.

[Novus America]

An empire with two emperors is illogical by its very nature.
And the Western Emperor was abolished and there was nothing that the ERE could do to stop it.
Showing the empire had ceased to function as one unit.
Sure the ERE Emperors claimed it, but claiming something and having it are different tings.

And do you have any source about this instance in 464?
Plus two states that throng together is not the same thing as de facto joint administration.

I am talking de facto, not de jure.

De jure, according to the ERE emperors at least yes, it did last until the 1400s.

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

The Romans certainly didn't feel like it was illogical, there have been many states with more than one head of state, you think it's illogical only because no country in recent history had such a system.

Odoacer at least nominally accepted the rule of the Eastern Emperors.

Any history of the late Roman Empire should cover the expedition to North Africa to restore the rule of the Western Emperor sufficiently.

Well it obviously did not work well for the Romans considered the two Emperors literally fought wars against each other.

Again I said de facto. Nominal acceptance is not actually having a functioning single state.
I know the ERE CLAIMED to be the Roman Empire until the end. But claims mean nothing if you cannot enforce them.

And I need some citation. I have never heard of this particular campaign, and see no mention of it in a history of North Africa.
And again a joint campaign is not the same thing as being the same state.

[Kowani]

An empire with two emperors is illogical by its very nature.
And the Western Emperor was abolished and there was nothing that the ERE could do to stop it.
Showing the empire had ceased to function as one unit.
Sure the ERE Emperors claimed it, but claiming something and having it are different tings.

And do you have any source about this instance in 464?
Plus two states that throng together is not the same thing as de facto joint administration.

I am talking de facto, not de jure.

De jure, according to the ERE emperors at least yes, it did last until the 1400s.

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

The Romans certainly didn't feel like it was illogical, there have been many states with more than one head of state, you think it's illogical only because no country in recent history had such a system.

Odoacer at least nominally accepted the rule of the Eastern Emperors.

Any history of the late Roman Empire should cover the expedition to North Africa to restore the rule of the Western Emperor sufficiently.

Iirc, Andorra’s a diarchy.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The Romans certainly didn't feel like it was illogical, there have been many states with more than one head of state, you think it's illogical only because no country in recent history had such a system.

Odoacer at least nominally accepted the rule of the Eastern Emperors.

Any history of the late Roman Empire should cover the expedition to North Africa to restore the rule of the Western Emperor sufficiently.

Well it obviously did not work well for the Romans considered the two Emperors literally fought wars against each other.

Again I said de facto. Nominal acceptance is not actually having a functioning single state.
I know the ERE CLAIMED to be the Roman Empire until the end. But claims mean nothing if you cannot enforce them.

And I need some citation. I have never heard of this particular campaign, and see no mention of it in a history of North Africa.
And again a joint campaign is not the same thing as being the same state.

Emperors were fighting wars against each other well before the split in the Empire.

It was de facto too, Odoacer ruled legally as a Roman governor of Italy, allowed the appointment by the Eastern Emperors of Praetorian Prefects and Senators, and the mints were operated under the control of the Eastern court, moreover, the Eastern Emperor's laws were still law in Italy. The Roman population at the time certainly did not see the end of the Western Emperor as the end of Roman rule in Italy and now scholars of late Antiquity are beginning to move past this assumption as well.

Peter Heather. Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians Oxford University Press, 2005. Pp. 399-407.
The Eastern Emperor chose the Western Emperor, created a joint-Roman fleet, sailed to North Africa. At its failure, and the death of the Western Emperor, the Eastern Emperor again nominated the successor, though the Western Emperor did not exist for long after that.

[Novus America]

The Romans certainly didn't feel like it was illogical, there have been many states with more than one head of state, you think it's illogical only because no country in recent history had such a system.

Odoacer at least nominally accepted the rule of the Eastern Emperors.

Any history of the late Roman Empire should cover the expedition to North Africa to restore the rule of the Western Emperor sufficiently.

Iirc, Andorra’s a diarchy.

It is de jure. De facto the “co princes” have not power though.

[Novus America]

Well it obviously did not work well for the Romans considered the two Emperors literally fought wars against each other.

Again I said de facto. Nominal acceptance is not actually having a functioning single state.
I know the ERE CLAIMED to be the Roman Empire until the end. But claims mean nothing if you cannot enforce them.

And I need some citation. I have never heard of this particular campaign, and see no mention of it in a history of North Africa.
And again a joint campaign is not the same thing as being the same state.

Emperors were fighting wars against each other well before the split in the Empire.

It was de facto too, Odoacer ruled legally as a Roman governor of Italy, allowed the appointment by the Eastern Emperors of Praetorian Prefects and Senators, and the mints were operated under the control of the Eastern court, moreover, the Eastern Emperor's laws were still law in Italy. The Roman population at the time certainly did not see the end of the Western Emperor as the end of Roman rule in Italy and now scholars of late Antiquity are beginning to move past this assumption as well.

Peter Heather. Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians Oxford University Press, 2005. Pp. 399-407.
The Eastern Emperor chose the Western Emperor, created a joint-Roman fleet, sailed to North Africa. At its failure, and the death of the Western Emperor, the Eastern Emperor again nominated the successor, though the Western Emperor did not exist for long after that.

When there was only one Emperor, the one Emperor did not fight themself.
Hence why two Emperors was a stupid and ruinous system.
Which caused the empire to break apart.

Did Odoacer get permission before seizing power in Italy?
No. Did he obey the laws of the ERE? Often not.
Again I am not disputing the ERE claimed the continuation of one Empire as a legal fiction.

But obviously they were not successful in actually keeping it together.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Emperors were fighting wars against each other well before the split in the Empire.

It was de facto too, Odoacer ruled legally as a Roman governor of Italy, allowed the appointment by the Eastern Emperors of Praetorian Prefects and Senators, and the mints were operated under the control of the Eastern court, moreover, the Eastern Emperor's laws were still law in Italy. The Roman population at the time certainly did not see the end of the Western Emperor as the end of Roman rule in Italy and now scholars of late Antiquity are beginning to move past this assumption as well.

Peter Heather. Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians Oxford University Press, 2005. Pp. 399-407.
The Eastern Emperor chose the Western Emperor, created a joint-Roman fleet, sailed to North Africa. At its failure, and the death of the Western Emperor, the Eastern Emperor again nominated the successor, though the Western Emperor did not exist for long after that.

When there was only one Emperor, the one Emperor did not fight themself.
Hence why two Emperors was a stupid and ruinous system.
Which caused the empire to break apart.

Did Odoacer get permission before seizing power in Italy?
No. Did he obey the laws of the ERE? Often not.
Again I am not disputing the ERE claimed the continuation of one Empire as a legal fiction.

But obviously they were not successful in actually keeping it together.

There hadn't been "one emperor" for well over a century by 395. Arguably there were three emperors during the Crisis of the Third Century, there were 4 emperors during the tetrarchy, a few periods of one emperor, in the fourth century, but mostly two emperors. And even when there was one Emperor, there were many periods where more than one person claimed to be Emperor.

Yes, he did actually obey the laws of the ERE, including paying tribute to the Eastern Emperor, collecting taxes for the Eastern Emperor, etc.

States are not concrete realities, they are socially constructed realities, as Arch pointed out above, that often means that perception is what is most important. The Roman officials, Roman citizenry, and even the Barbarians to some extent believed that they were subjects of the Eastern Emperor, so, as far as statecraft is concerned, they were until Theodoric seized power fully.

[Auze]

1479, when the last few towns belonging to the Despotate of Epirus fell to Ottoman forces.

[Novus America]

When there was only one Emperor, the one Emperor did not fight themself.
Hence why two Emperors was a stupid and ruinous system.
Which caused the empire to break apart.

Did Odoacer get permission before seizing power in Italy?
No. Did he obey the laws of the ERE? Often not.
Again I am not disputing the ERE claimed the continuation of one Empire as a legal fiction.

But obviously they were not successful in actually keeping it together.

There hadn't been "one emperor" for well over a century by 395. Arguably there were three emperors during the Crisis of the Third Century, there were 4 emperors during the tetrarchy, a few periods of one emperor, in the fourth century, but mostly two emperors. And even when there was one Emperor, there were many periods where more than one person claimed to be Emperor.

Yes, he did actually obey the laws of the ERE, including paying tribute to the Eastern Emperor, collecting taxes for the Eastern Emperor, etc.

States are not concrete realities, they are socially constructed realities, as Arch pointed out above, that often means that perception is what is most important. The Roman officials, Roman citizenry, and even the Barbarians to some extent believed that they were subjects of the Eastern Emperor, so, as far as statecraft is concerned, they were until Theodoric seized power fully.

Sure the Empire has been falling into fragmentation and warlordism long before then.
But it is obviously Rome did better with one Emperor instead of two or more.
So seizing and sacking Rome was obeying the laws?
He did it without permission, seized power because he could and there was no one to stop him.

States are legal entities, they are more than just social constructs.
There is more to being a state than simply claiming to be.

[United Muscovite Nations]

There hadn't been "one emperor" for well over a century by 395. Arguably there were three emperors during the Crisis of the Third Century, there were 4 emperors during the tetrarchy, a few periods of one emperor, in the fourth century, but mostly two emperors. And even when there was one Emperor, there were many periods where more than one person claimed to be Emperor.

Yes, he did actually obey the laws of the ERE, including paying tribute to the Eastern Emperor, collecting taxes for the Eastern Emperor, etc.

States are not concrete realities, they are socially constructed realities, as Arch pointed out above, that often means that perception is what is most important. The Roman officials, Roman citizenry, and even the Barbarians to some extent believed that they were subjects of the Eastern Emperor, so, as far as statecraft is concerned, they were until Theodoric seized power fully.

Sure the Empire has been falling into fragmentation and warlordism long before then.
But it is obviously Rome did better with one Emperor instead of two or more.
So seizing and sacking Rome was obeying the laws?
He did it without permission, seized power because he could and there was no one to stop him.

States are legal entities, they are more than just social constructs.
There is more to being a state than simply claiming to be.

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.

[Neanderthaland]

No option for 1917?

[Auze]

Sure the Empire has been falling into fragmentation and warlordism long before then.
But it is obviously Rome did better with one Emperor instead of two or more.
So seizing and sacking Rome was obeying the laws?
He did it without permission, seized power because he could and there was no one to stop him.

States are legal entities, they are more than just social constructs.
There is more to being a state than simply claiming to be.

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.

IIRC, he even had the support of the Roman Senate, which is more than many of the Roman Emperors could claim.

[Novus America]

Sure the Empire has been falling into fragmentation and warlordism long before then.
But it is obviously Rome did better with one Emperor instead of two or more.
So seizing and sacking Rome was obeying the laws?
He did it without permission, seized power because he could and there was no one to stop him.

States are legal entities, they are more than just social constructs.
There is more to being a state than simply claiming to be.

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.

[Bears Armed]

Well it obviously did not work well for the Romans considered the two Emperors literally fought wars against each other.

There were rival Emperors fighting against each other on numerous occasions before that split, with the first case just after the death of Nero, as well. Are you saying that it wasn't one 'Empire' then?

[Hurdergaryp]

Well it obviously did not work well for the Romans considered the two Emperors literally fought wars against each other.

There were rival Emperors fighting against each other on numerous occasions before that split, with the first case just after the death of Nero, as well. Are you saying that it wasn't one 'Empire' then?

The Romans fought civil wars regularly, as if it was a perfectly reasonable activity to undertake with your friends.

[Phoenicaea]

^ what emerges from the discussion is historians had a compromise, when establishing the end with the overthrown of 476 ad.

they could set the fall before, in the gothic sack, as rome hadn t stood again after, or later, within the retreat in the 'Italic wars' of Justinianus.

it is a sensible compromise what we have. i would even have it anticipated.

to have it in twitter format, byziantum empire is roman, still it is not the roman empire

[Novus America]

Well it obviously did not work well for the Romans considered the two Emperors literally fought wars against each other.

There were rival Emperors fighting against each other on numerous occasions before that split, with the first case just after the death of Nero, as well. Are you saying that it wasn't one 'Empire' then?

No. Because it reunited after the wars. Which is why I put 395 as the end.