When did the Roman Empire -truly- fall? According to google it was 476. What about the Byzantine Empire? Or the Holy Roman Empire? Roman Empire of Nicaea? When did it finally fall?
>>1420467
476
The rest are just romeaboo wannabes
>>1420467
Let me be the first to say...
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
>The Roman Empire survived and still lives on as the Catholic Church
Where does meme come from and when will it die?
>>1420467
1453. Fuck the Turks.
1917 when the backstabbing bolshevik Jews ploted and assassinated the last Roman Emperor (Russia = third Rome).
The Roman State as it was established in the 1st century AD fell in 1453 AD with the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire
The Holy Roman Empire was a German confederation of states that originated in Francia. The Franks under Charlemagne styled themselves after the Romans, hence the name.
The Nicean Empire was very short lived and its people largely identified as Greek rather than Roman, whereas the Byzantines called themselves Romans and were called Romans by others.
>>1420490
>The Roman State as it was established in the 1st century AD fell in 1453 AD with the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire
Oh please. Trying to compare the Byzantine Empire to the Roman Empire is a joke and it was little more than a city state by the time the Turks trashed it.
1453. Every other answer is shit.
>476
This was the 'symbolic' fall of the Western Roman empire, but in reality Rome itself hadn't been the capital for centuries (so there's no reason to consider it the 'true' Rome over Byzantium), the state had been defunct and could hardly be described as an empire at that point, and most importantly it didn't actually end in that date, it just got new leadership and continued with the same institutions under Odoacer and the Ostrogoths. In the end there's no single date for the fall of the Western Empire, and either way it's not the end of the Roman Empire anyway, 1453 is.
>HRE
It's only claim to being 'Roman' was that the Pope said so. It was a symbolic successor to Rome, but it wasn't actually Rome. The Pope doesn't have some kind of magic power to decide who is Rome and who isn't. The reality is that the HRE grew out of the Frankish empire, not Rome. It was about as Roman as the Rum Seljuks.
>Byzantium
This was the direct continuation of the Roman Empire with a new capital. Just because the population was Greek doesn't make them any less Roman; 'Roman' was an identity separate from and above language. It was a direct continuation of the same state, however different it's culture might have been from that of classical Rome.
>>1420509
>have an apple
>cut it in half
>eat one half
>leave the other half for 900 years
>"uh actually I'll have you know that isn't half an apple you've got there in actual fact it is a banana"
>>1420509
>Oh please. Trying to compare the Byzantine Empire to the Roman Empire is a joke
Yeah, it is, because they were the same thing.
>>1420509
>it was little more than a city state by the time the Turks trashed it.
Western Rome was a defunct rump-state when Odoacer thrashed it too, are you going to say it wasn't Roman either?
>>1420516
>have an apple
>cut it in half
>eat one half
>leave the other half for 900 years
>THE MOLDY CHUNK YOU HAVE LEFT IS DEFINITELY AN APPLE
Top kek.
>>1420517
>Yeah, it is, because they were the same thing.
In what sense?
>>1420543
Moldy apples aren't apples?
>>1420543
So a moldy chunk of apple is a bannana now?
>>1420552
>>1420555
So a tiny little moldy fleck of an apple is, by some magic a complete fresh apple now is it? I guess there must be some sort of magic I am unaware of that makes a tiny little city state with it's capitol nowhere near Rome literally equivalent to the Roman Empire by people simple stating "are you saying apples are bananas!!!!! XD XD lol!" or "are you saying apples aren't apples!!! Gib me upboats!!!"
>>1420606
Not a complete, fresh apple but still an apple yes.
>>1420475
Because pope has the title of pontifex maximus that used to belong to the emperors. But by that logic the Roman Republic existed well into the middle ages because Alfred the Great had the title of consul
during the Crisis of the Third Century, when Rome started losing relevance in favour of other cities
the empire was a mistake anyway, the Senate and the Republic were the greatest thing to ever grace mankind
>>1420606
It was a continuation of the Roman state, founded by an emperor, and continued to have an emperor until 1453. It may have been a shadow of what was, but it was still the Eastern half of the empire regardless of how it looked by the end.
>>1420622
Not only is it obvious, complete and total bollocks that if presented with a tiny sliver of moldy apple skin that you would say "hey that's an apple" but I am getting completely bored with these ridiculous fruit based analogies.
At what point did you think starting an argument over apples and bananas would make the Byzantine Empire the same thing as the Roman Empire? I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life.
>>1420653
>It was a continuation of the Roman state, founded by an emperor, and continued to have an emperor until 1453.
No it was the still existing Roman Empire shedding the eastern part because it was failing to successfully govern its realms.
>>1420659
We're talking about the Roman Empire? I've been talking about apples.
>>1420665
Fair play, anon, fair play! ;-)
>>1420664
You realize that there was an emperor for each half of the empire right? Are you literally only counting the West as Roman because it contained Rome? Please explain how you consider one the Roman state and not the other?
>>1420467
>fall
>laughing_popes.jpg
>>1420512
This.
>>1420486
>>1420678
>You realize that there was an emperor for each half of the empire right? Are you literally only counting the West as Roman because it contained Rome? Please explain how you consider one the Roman state and not the other?
You made my case for me.
The Roman Empire was an expansionist state with Rome as its capital.
Such a technicality isn't my only point but the Roman Empire didn't merely shift the centre of governance, it shed its Eastern portion to a new centre of governance as part of its decline, however it did not abandon Rome when Constantinople was created so pretending it was a mere continuation of the empire with merely a shift in capital city is obviously silly.
I'd say in 324, with the establishment of "Constantinople."
>>1420664
no, to be exact the WESTERN part that was "shedded" from the empire since emperor constantinus moved the capital to byzantion aka. constantinopolis
Why does there have to be one single point in time?
I'd say Roman culture truly died with the Gothic wars in Italy.
>>1420847
I think it is a good argument that you are trying to make that the Roman Empire ended in 330AD.
I'm not sure I entirely agree as Rome didn't fall until later but I respect your opinion that it should be dated earlier than that.
476. The
>Eastern
>Roman
>Empire
Wasn't remotely recognizable as Roman having turned away from its language, traditions, religion and culture.
Roman Empire fell in 286 when the Capital shifted to Milan.
>>1420471
If you wish to set a date for the fall of the western Roman empire, then it ought to be 480, with the murder of Julius Nepos.
He had ruled in Italy from 474, but was forced to flee to his inherited provincial 'fief', Dalmatia when his magister militum Orestes staged a coup and placed his son Romulus Augustulus on the western throne.
But Nepos continued to show defiance, even after Odoacer's deposition of Romulus. When Odoacer had sent the imperial regalia to Zeno in Constantinople, claiming that the west no longer required an emperor, Zeno insisted that terms be made with Nepos, and that the 'deposed' emperor ought to be recognised. It seems that Odoacer paid lip service to Nepos until his death, with coins in his name minted in Italy until 480.
The Eastern Roman Empire of course, did not fall until 1453.
>>1420765
From 533-751, Rome was reincorporated into the Eastern Empire. But your metric is flawed regardless - Rome had not been anything other than a ceremonial capital from the 3rd century, with the imperial residence and court usually resident at Milan and later Ravenna, when they were in Italy at all.
486.
After the city of Rome had fallen, there was still a surviving piece of the Roman Empire in Northern Gaul. It survived until it was conquered by Clovis in 486.
>>1420894
>having turned away from its language, traditions, religion and culture.
Western Rome experienced changes in all those things as well. Culture changes, in every country in the world in every era of human history.
>>1420874
kids like things to be black and white, it makes its easier for them to understand things. Things that are grey aren't fun because its difficult to tell everyone about how much you know when there isn't something concrete to blurt out. Most people on /his/ go to wikipedia and search for things that confirm their worldview and then post it to show how right they are. Kids grow up though so dont worry.
>>1420916
Much as I want this to be true, research suggests that it is unlikely. All we know is that Syagrius, as 'rex Romanorum' (a curious title - the best piece on this title is S. Fanning, 'Emperors and Empires in fifth-century Gaul' in Drinkwater and Elton (eds.) Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? (1992)).
Beyond that, the territorial extent of the region he controlled from Soissons is unlikely to have extended beyond the territorium of the civitas. We know of Arbogast, Comes of Trier and a Comes Paul - all of whom seem to have fought with and against the Franks of northern Gaul at various moments.
Edward James' 'The Franks' remains the best piece of scholarship on the 'Domain', updated but generally corroborated by the relevant chapters Penny MacGeorge's 'Late Roman Warlords' (Oxford, 2009).
tl;dr more likely that the 'Domain' was actually divided between numerous local Roman and Frankish powers prior to the conquest of Clovis. The letter of Remigius to Childeric, Clovis' father, congratulating him on his conquest of Belgica Secunda suggests that Gregory of Tours narrative - wherein the conquest of Soissons opens up the entire area north of the Loire to Frankish dominance - whilst perhaps representing a genuine event, nevertheless misrepresents its significance.
>>1420921
This is what irritates me so much about the entire question, as well as the trollish insistence that the Eastern Roman Empire was not 'Roman'.
You need only pick up ANY book on the topic to discover that this assertion is untrue. 'Byzantium' is a convenient abstraction for the modern study of history, which works within the bounds of artificial periodizations - but it is a severe hindrance to understanding the 'consitutional' and self-image of the later Roman empire.
>>1420907
>>1420890
>>1420806
>>1420765
Are you so retarded that you can't tell the difference between an empire and a city? Rome wasn't a city state. It was an empire, named after a city but not defined by it. It wasn't one city ruling everyone else, but a single political system which was centered at Rome, but could be centered anywhere else. Most Romans did not live in Rome. A 'Roman' was a citizen of Rome, not someone living in the city. The empire did not collapse in 286, 324 or 476. Brazil didn't collapse in 1960, Japan didn't collapse in 1868, and Russia didn't collapse in 1918.
>>1420974
>'Byzantium' is a convenient abstraction for the modern study of history, which works within the bounds of artificial periodizations - but it is a severe hindrance to understanding the 'consitutional' and self-image of the later Roman empire.
I find 'Byzantium' to be a really useful term for differentiation Christian Rome from classical Rome. We shouldn't throw away useful terms just because some retards can't understand them. I hope this doesn't turn into another 'Dark Ages'.
>>1420977
I wasn't aware that Russia moved its capital to India in 1918 and Japan moved its capital to Korea in 1868 and Brazil moved its capital to Scotland in 1960.
Please do tell me more about this.
>>1420997
>We shouldn't throw away useful terms just because some retards can't understand them. I hope this doesn't turn into another 'Dark Ages'.
It probably won't. There are decent written sources from the Byzantium Empire but they are few and far between for the Dark Ages, which is how it got its name.
>>1420997
Precisely why I labelled it a 'convenient abstraction'. The historical discipline requires the imposition of artificial periodizations and breaks - else it would be impossible to demarcate the limits required for useful and manageable studies to be made.
However, conventionally it isn't used to demarcate the transition from a 'pagan' to Christian empire, but the emergence of the Eastern Roman State from the Persian War (602-628) and conquests of the Rashidun Caliphate. The truncated eastern empire that emerges in the later 7th century is administratively, 'constitutionally', demographically, socially, economically and territorially hugely different from the situation that pertained ante bellum.
'Byzantium' as a term has had its 'Dark Ages' moment. It has been a problematic norm, swept aside by revisionists and now, reclaimed by the field for convenience.
John Haldon and Averil Cameron both deal with the issue, and the precise period of 'transition', in depth.
>>1421027
This is the biggest problem with the term - the idea of the documentary evidence being few and far between is entirely erroneous. Perhaps the only place the traditional characterization of the 'Dark Ages' pertains is post-Roman Britain c.410-600 and even then, we have the Confessio and Epistola of St. Patrick (c.460s) and Gildas' De Excidio Britanniae (c.480s-540s).
The textual record from the late fifth century onwards is in many respects - for example, with regard to charters and other administrative documents, far richer than the preceding late Roman period (with the exception of Egypt - which due to the archaeological conditions is a documentary exception throughout its antique and early medieval history).
>>1421028
>However, conventionally it isn't used to demarcate the transition from a 'pagan' to Christian empire, but the emergence of the Eastern Roman State from the Persian War (602-628) and conquests of the Rashidun Caliphate.
That's how I prefer to use it as well, but I thought it could be used either way. Or it it only non-historians who use it to refer to Christian Rome?
>>1421043
Why compare it to the late Roman period rather than the late Middle Ages or the Roman Empire in its pomp?
>>1421014
Well that's not comparable at all
What it is comparable to, since you mentioned Scotland, is when the Scottish Highlands began to lose their political and economic relevance in the 12th century and by the 15th century the Scottish capital was moved from Scone in the Highlands to Edinburgh in the Lowlands. The people of Edinburgh were no less Scottish than the people of Scone, but they were culturally, linguistically and religiously different. Like how the people of Constantinople were no less Roman than the people of Rome, but they were culturally, linguistically, and religiously different. Nobody would argue that Edinburgh isn't Scottish, nobody should try to argue that the Eastern Empire wasn't Roman.
>>1420467
1922.
>>1420516
>Give the apple to a turk
>TOTALLY A BANANA NOW, GUYS.
>>1420512
Couldn't you argue that Rome fell with the 4th Crusade?
Otherwise I agree.
>>1421061
I love the way you are causally claiming that Istanbul and Rome are as close to each other as Scone and Edinburgh.
Good one, made me chuckle a little bit. You could made a career out of this.
>>1421077
Geographical distance doesn't matter, they were administered by the same government and part of the same state
>>1420467
One of the key factors I personally (so take this with a grain of salt) to Romanness is the empire being able to maintain a large imperial center. Rome and Constantinople were the two centers of urbanization within the Late Roman Empire, and Constantinople maintained itself pretty well in this capacity until about 1204, so I give 1204 as when the Eastern Roman Empire stopped being Roman in a real capacity.
>>1421083
Oh right. Sorry my history of Scotland is rusty. I didn't know it split apart in the 15th Century and never came together again, silly me.
What's the other half of Scotland called?
shoo shoo gibbons goblin
>>1421073
Only temporarily, since the Byzantium that reemerged after the 4th crusade was effectively the same state, and there was a direct transition from Byzantium to Nicaea and back to Byzantium.
>>1421058
Well, if you compare it to the Roman Empire at it's 'height', usually defined as the late 1st/early 2nd century, then it still offers a far greater variety and amount of textual evidence.
If you compare it to the later Middle Ages, then the period say c.500-800 still shits on the record for some areas. The entire period c.500-1400 varies in the richness of its textual period in Europe considerably depending upon the region and period under consideration in a way that doesn't really leave the 'Dark Ages' as a conspicuous blank space.
It's not really until the invention of the printing press, and by some definitions thus, the inauguration of the 'Early Modern' era, that the overall mean average of textual evidence picks up significantly.
Really the term is a hangover from the days when it was thought the 'progress' of western civilization could be measured objectively, and the post-Roman centuries were thought to demonstrate aught but cultural and intellectual decadence and retrenchment when compared to the 'might' of the Roman project.
>>1420894
Except at that point the language of the state was latin, laws were in latin, the army spoke latin,and they were still forming imperial legions to deal with problems, complete with corp of hevay infantry with shield, spear, spatha, intercisca helmets, and mail. Oh, and they, and everyone who encountered them, called them romans.
They were roman as roman could be, you faggot
>>1421055
I cannot think of many academic historians who would refer to the eastern empire as Byzantium before the mid-7th century - but older works, which took a dim view of the continued survival in the east determined that Byzantium emerges in 324 with the founding inauguration of Constantinople.
Essentially, it was not until the 1980s that the 'modern' definition of the term was worked out, so like I say, you'll see earlier works with vastly different usages - deviation now tends to be be restricted to an individual's desire to make a point.
>>1421091
Well 'constitutionally' the Roman empire never split. It was always maintained, until the dying day (whenever that was) of the western empire, that the two were united as one. No contemporary would recognize that there had been a split - merely that from c.395 onwards, there was now a stable and conventional imperial college. After all, under the Tetrarchs it was not said that the empire was split into four - rather, that four emperors were administering to one empire.
Laws promulgated in one half of the empire continued to be implemented in the other, there were joint military ventures and taxes and troops were on occasion shared.
>>1421043
>>1421100
The Dark Ages are useful for describing a period between about 400 and 750 AD during which Western European urbanism, statehood, infrastructure, material wealth, trade, literacy and political/cultural integration were greatly reduced or in some areas completely collapsed. I don't think it should be about records since we have all kinds of stuff from monasteries and royal chronicles, while there are other greater civilizations where we have almost no records but would never regard as 'dark'.
I prefer to use the term Migration Period though because it doesn't upset people as much, but I'd rather people acknowledge that there was a period in which most of what we regard as 'civilization' very clearly did decline.
The capitol of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century was Ravenna, not Rome.
>>1421130
Western ROMAN empire
>>1421130
See Andrew Gillett (2001) Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors.
It seems that Rome remained the de jure capital, with Ravenna serving as the base of the military and civil administrations. But with the death of Honorius (423), for the rest of the 5th century Rome was increasingly home of the imperial court, and hence, the capital.
>>1421114
Alright, thanks for clearing that up. Seems kind of weird considering that Justinian is the face of Byzantium for most people though. I imagine the post 7th century definition won't catch on outside of academia considering that.
>>1421139
Rome made a concentrated effort to spread roman people around its dominion even in the days of the early republic, you retard.
>>1420467
1453, or arguably 1204 at the earliest.
The fall of the Western Roman Empire was followed by Odovacer handing back the vestments of imperial power to the Eastern Roman Emperor in Constantinople, formally vesting the complete throne back in him.
>>1420471
>romeaboo wannabes
Mother fucker it was a legitimate, unbroken continuation. Just because they lost a chunk of their land didn't mean the authority over the Eastern Empire miraculously failed to exist. When the United Kingdom gave up control of most of its colonies, did it cease to be the United Kingdom?
>>1420471
This.
You can't have a Roman empire without Rome.
>>1423155
Even though the seat of power and center of economic growth had been moved to Constantinople a century earlier?
Come on anon, we all know the Aegean area was every bit as important as Italy before the fall of the west.
>>1423164
Yeah.
And the Byzantine Empire continued to prosper.
It was not, however, the Roman empire.
That fell when the city of Rome no longer held an empire.
2012
>>1423167
So what do you call the 200 year period when the Eastern Empire did control Rome?
>>1421127
As much as I enjoy reading well thought out and respectful posts on here, you gotta stop responding to that autistic piece of shit man
>>1423196
The Eastern Roman Empire.
See, Rome died just before that 200 year period of massive cuck failure.
So by /his/ logic, the nation known as the United States of America shouldn't be called by that name because of how massively different it is in culture, ethnic makeup, and territorial composition when compared to the state founded in 1776?
>>1423249
No, thats just some retarded shitposters.
>>1423249
It also isn't the United States of America, but a new country, since the Declaration of Independence wasn't in Washington D.C.
Canada shouldn't be called Canada, since Confederation placed its capital at Kingston, not Ottawa.
The USSR shouldn't be called that, since it moved its capital to Moscow, whereas it was declared in Petrograd.
Italy shouldn't be called that, since at its inception as a nation, Rome was in Papal hands.
The list goes on and on.
Neither the PRC nor the RoC should be called China, as neither has its capital in Nanking.
Japan should be called something different, since it no longer is ruled from Kyoto.
>>1420467
>According to google it was 476
lol no
>>1423151
If you lose the British Isles and transfered your seat of power, Yes.
>>1423260
Last time I checked, they aren't called Washingtonian , Ottawan, Petrogradian and Nankingese empires.
>>1421091
>What's the other half of Scotland called?
highlands and lowlands?
>>1423225
So it's the Eastern Roman Empire until 476, then Byzantium until 533 at which point it becomes the Eastern Roman Empire until 751 at which point it reverts to Byzantium again?
This is (just one reason) why historians would consider your logic to be completely retarded.
>>1423155
Technically Byzantium held Rome for a period, is it Rome now?
Justinian took back Rome after the fall of the west , so actually the Byzantine Empire did actually include Rome
>>1420486
>5 posts in
cлaвa тoвapиш! )))))))
Constantinople's official name was "ROMANOVA" or Roma Nova, so literally "New Rome"
It is rome.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
>>1424981
this
the only reason it's called constantinople was because people memed about new rome being Constantine's city, which Constantine fucking hated but the name stuck anyways
