When Did The Roman Empire Really End?

[emperor]

hi i was wondering when you thoght the roman empire really ended. theres been many diffrent roman empires theres bin the ancient roman empire whitch then split into east and west and theres been the byzantine empire and the empire of charlamagne and the holy roman empire and in my opinion today the vatican. but when do you think it really ended.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Sorry but there's already a thread on this.

Fine fine Tobias. My view is that the Roman Empire truely ended when the East fell(not the general concensus, but there

are those like me who take it literal and consider the Byzantines always Romans and forever, thus Rome ended when the east fell.) But then my Catholic beliefs lead me to say that Rome never fell, it still lives in the Vatican and the Church.

Edited December 12, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Tobias]

The general consensus is that it ended with the deposition of Romulus Augustus by Odovacer, and the beginning of the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths in it's place. However, I myself, and many others, believe that the Eastern Roman Empire, later becoming known as the Byzantine Empire, is a genuine successor state to the Roman Empire. Certainly, the empire did not possess Rome (for long), but it possessed the ideals of a Roman Empire, and it's capital Constantinople was officially named Nova Roma.

Charlemagne's Empire i believe could only just claim to be a sucessor state, but it is controversial, and the empire certainly did not last. Charlemagne was anointed by Pope Leo III as "Emperor governing the Roman Empire". Whilst it can be disputed how much right the Pope had to do this, this is a fairly legitimate reason to at least call Charlemagne's Empire a "Reborn Western Empire" whilst he was alive, although it could be said that the Pope did this because of the strength of Charlemagne . The Byzantines certainly didn't want to accept this, however, and emphasised this by inscribing the title "Emperor of the Romans" on their coins.

As i said, however, Charlemagne's Empire disintegrated fast, and soon was reduced to a kingdom in Upper Italy. This could mark the end of another "Roman Empire".

The Holy Roman Empire was similar to Charlemagne's Empire in that it gained an essentially artificial cover of a "Roman Empire" by having it's ruler Otto I, King of Germany, crowned Emperor in Rome when he conquered the Kingdom of Italy. The Holy Roman Empire could be said to have lost this cover, however, when the Emperor Rudolph of Hapsburg recognized the Popes' declaration of independence of the Papal States in 1278, thus losing the possession of Rome and the "aura" that went along with it.

Finally in 1453, The Byzantine Empire, the only empire that could be said to have the strongest right to be called " The Roman Empire", fell to the Ottoman Empire. All that remained after this was the papal states, which were further weakened by the Great Schism (1378-1417) when there was a Pope in Rome and in Avignon. However, by the mid 17th century it had regained direct control of the whole of the Patrimonium Petri.

The Papal States are probably the most legitimate successors to the Roman Empire remaining, although it can be disputed.

I believe myself that the real end of the Roman Empire was the fall of Constantinople, as an Emperor ruled the city, and it had the strongest surviving link to the ancient Roman Empire, whereas the Papal States had been conquered by various rulers and restored to favourable Popes for political reasons.

One has to remember that despite the deposition of Romulus Augustus and the fall of the west, most peoples in Europe had large respect for the name of "The Roman Empire", and if you had a dominion in Europe back then, calling your own Empire a sucessor or genuine continuation of the Roman Empire would probably gain a large amount of respect for your empire. That is what occurred; the were any number of "Roman Empires" in Europe; they just weren't necessarily genuine

 

 

No reason why we can't discuss it again Flavius

Edited December 12, 2005 by Tobias

[Ursus]

And as per Tobias it has been moved to a more suitable forum.

[Tobias]

Yes i typed that message hoping you would notice it Ursus

[Sextus Roscius]

In my eyes, all the traditional Roman values from the Republican times, and the traditional fear, power, glory, knowledge, wealth, and all around sense of what Rome truely meant fell when the eternal city was overun by the Barbarians. The Byzantines followed new beleifs, ideas, and strategies that were not the same as what it originaly meant to be Roman. Rome technacily survived after the fall of the Eternal city, but the infasturcture, lifestyle, and values that were traditionaly Roman fell. This can be seen becuase right after the western Empires fall Europe descended into fudeal states and they destroyed the great infastructure the Romans had put up.

 

Ultimatly, The Roman Empire ended with no hope of recovery in the year Romulus Agustus (Ironic isn't it) and the Eternal city were no longer controled by Romans.

[Ursus]

Interesting that emperor originally posted it in the religious forums. In some circles in which I have a toe, the Empire founded (mythologically) by Romulus ended culturally with the removal of the Altar of Victory from the Senate by the new religious regime.

 

I'm not quite that maudlin. But certainly everything from Constantine to Theodosius and beyond signals a profound change. Roman in political terms, but perhaps not culturally.

[Fox Hound]

Greetings,

 

The Roman Empire or the Byzantines was politically ended with the Fall of Constantinople in the mid 15th century, with the complete collapse with its administration structure. Also the Byzantines consider themselves as Romans. Their opponents during the Dark Ages, like the Sassanids, then the Arabs and the Seljuks called the Byzantines as "al-Rum" which literally means Roman.

 

However if you talk about cultural, the Roman culture ended in the 7th century, when Justinian to Heraclius decided to Hellenized the Roman ways by changing the Latin language into Greek. But it's administration was essentially still Romans, with difference of the Christianized administration with the Emperor represented as God's viceroy on earth.

 

The Byzantines followed new beleifs, ideas, and strategies that were not the same as what it originaly meant to be Roman. Rome technacily survived after the fall of the Eternal city, but the infasturcture, lifestyle, and values that were traditionaly Roman fell. This can be seen becuase right after the western Empires fall Europe descended into fudeal states and they destroyed the great infastructure the Romans had put up.

 

The ways were actually still the same, the way Justinian or other Emperors (or Empresses) handles the Empire resembled the Roman ways by codifying laws with the difference only in the Christian values. Their war tacticts also resembled the Roman glory in every way as possible, where they saw wars as knowledge that needed to be studied, and more emphasized in heavy cavalry rather than the Legions.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Fox Hound

[Philhellene]

Fox Hound says:

 

However if you talk about cultural, the Roman culture ended in the 7th century, when Justinian to Heraclius decided to Hellenized the Roman ways by changing the Latin language into Greek.

 

Eastern emperors never "Hellenized" their empire. Where did you read that?

[Neos Dionysos]

Fox Hound says:

 

However if you talk about cultural, the Roman culture ended in the 7th century, when Justinian to Heraclius decided to Hellenized the Roman ways by changing the Latin language into Greek.

 

Eastern emperors never "Hellenized" their empire. Where did you read that?

 

 

The Eastern Portions of the Empire, (as Philhellene points out), were not Hellenized. They were always Hellenic from back to Alexander's day, the Romans never truely Romanized it they took it over and ran the administration and the upper levels for the most part spoke Latin but the lower classes and middle would be Greek with some Latin, over time when the main Latin speaking portions of the empire disappear you lose your Latin from dissuse. Just like the Greece and Macedonia was never really, 'Romanized' in the sense that they stopped speaking Greek and lost all thier culture, the same was in the East, besides, Rome admired the Greek culture and looked at it as thier forerunner.

[emperor]

The general consensus is that it ended with the deposition of Romulus Augustus by Odovacer, and the beginning of the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths in it's place. However, I myself, and many others, believe that the Eastern Roman Empire, later becoming known as the Byzantine Empire, is a genuine successor state to the Roman Empire. Certainly, the empire did not possess Rome (for long), but it possessed the ideals of a Roman Empire, and it's capital Constantinople was officially named Nova Roma.

Charlemagne's Empire i believe could only just claim to be a sucessor state, but it is controversial, and the empire certainly did not last. Charlemagne was anointed by Pope Leo III as "Emperor governing the Roman Empire". Whilst it can be disputed how much right the Pope had to do this, this is a fairly legitimate reason to at least call Charlemagne's Empire a "Reborn Western Empire" whilst he was alive, although it could be said that the Pope did this because of the strength of Charlemagne . The Byzantines certainly didn't want to accept this, however, and emphasised this by inscribing the title "Emperor of the Romans" on their coins.

As i said, however, Charlemagne's Empire disintegrated fast, and soon was reduced to a kingdom in Upper Italy. This could mark the end of another "Roman Empire".

The Holy Roman Empire was similar to Charlemagne's Empire in that it gained an essentially artificial cover of a "Roman Empire" by having it's ruler Otto I, King of Germany, crowned Emperor in Rome when he conquered the Kingdom of Italy. The Holy Roman Empire could be said to have lost this cover, however, when the Emperor Rudolph of Hapsburg recognized the Popes' declaration of independence of the Papal States in 1278, thus losing the possession of Rome and the "aura" that went along with it.

Finally in 1453, The Byzantine Empire, the only empire that could be said to have the strongest right to be called " The Roman Empire", fell to the Ottoman Empire. All that remained after this was the papal states, which were further weakened by the Great Schism (1378-1417) when there was a Pope in Rome and in Avignon. However, by the mid 17th century it had regained direct control of the whole of the Patrimonium Petri.

The Papal States are probably the most legitimate successors to the Roman Empire remaining, although it can be disputed.

I believe myself that the real end of the Roman Empire was the fall of Constantinople, as an Emperor ruled the city, and it had the strongest surviving link to the ancient Roman Empire, whereas the Papal States had been conquered by various rulers and restored to favourable Popes for political reasons.

One has to remember that despite the deposition of Romulus Augustus and the fall of the west, most peoples in Europe had large respect for the name of "The Roman Empire", and if you had a dominion in Europe back then, calling your own Empire a sucessor or genuine continuation of the Roman Empire would probably gain a large amount of respect for your empire. That is what occurred; the were any number of "Roman Empires" in Europe; they just weren't necessarily genuine

 

 

No reason why we can't discuss it again Flavius

I agree with you . but i have a question when romulus agustus ended the west roman empire he gave the east roman or byzantine empire the right to controll all the former states of the west empire. the pope not wanting the roman catholic church to be ruled buy greek orthodox crowned charlamagne roman emperor . charlmagne succesor state the holy roman empire lost rome in 1278. so who is thr real succesor to the roman empire the paapal states which conroll rome or the byzantine empire controlling the capital of the roman empire since constantine Constantinople

Edited December 17, 2005 by emperor

[Philhellene]

when romulus agustus ended the west roman empire he gave the east roman or byzantine empire the right to controll all the former states of the west empire.

 

It is pure hokum.

[Tobias]

when romulus agustus ended the west roman empire he gave the east roman or byzantine empire the right to controll all the former states of the west empire.

 

Romulus Augustus did nothing but abdicate to Odovacer, and give him the Imperial Regalia. Odovacer then gave the regalia to Emperor Zeno in the East, stating that one emperor was enough. So; Odovacer's Kingdom considered itself to be a successor to the West, and they also owed allegiance to the East. Zeno did not really have enough power to regain full control of Italy, as he was having enough problems recovering from his usurpation by Basiliscus, so he accepted Odovacer's control of Italy whilst remaining his overlord.

 

the pope not wanting the roman catholic church to be ruled buy greek orthodox crowned charlamagne roman emperor .

 

In the opinion of many, the Pope did not have much of a right to do this, as he merely ruled the Roman Catholic Church, not the Roman Empire. However, that is beside the point. Charlemagne's successors did little to earn the title, and his empire disintegrated. As i mentioned above, Otto of the Holy Roman Empire was merely crowned "Emperor" because it was the wisest course for the Pope to take. I can from there on only quote one of my colleagues from UNRV; "The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, or an Empire."

 

As i mentioned above, the Papal states were "protected" by various rulers, and initially conquered by the lombards. I myself don't believe that the title of a Roman "Emperor" bestowed by the Pope had any meaning whatsoever, because a Pope had no right to do so. The most direct descendant from ancient Rome was the Byzantine Empire.

 

Why do i get the feeling i'm repeating myself

Edited December 18, 2005 by Tobias

[Northern Neil]

As with all things that evolve, there is bound to be a spread of opinion in which people differ to degrees, but all have valid reasons for stating their case. For example: amongst anthropologists, there is a great debate as to when hominids can actually be called 'human' and lots of differing viewpoints which hold equal validity.

 

When Romulus Augustus abdicated, Rome had not been the seat of empire for at least 200 years: did the end then come when the emperors chose Nicomedia, or Milan or Ravenna as their seat of government? Did it end with Romulus' abdication, or when the Lombards destroyed Roman material culture in Italy a century later?

 

As I've said in one or two other postings, the actual Roman state as founded by Augustus certainly carried on until 1453, in an unbroken succession of rulers. The question I ask is, during which cultural phase does one, with the advantage of hindsight, draw the line? My guess is with the reforms of Heraclius in the 620's, although even then the continuity of the Empire itself leaves me with a feeling I am in the wrong here...

Edited December 18, 2005 by Northern Neil

[Tobias]

I believe that culturally, it may be a little more distinctive. It could be said that Justinian's codifying of laws helped along things, and certainly, the Eastern Roman Empire was ruled entirely from Constantinople by that stage, and by the time of Heraclius, things were definitely far different then it was in, for example, Constantine's time. Heraclius was the last ruler to come from the west, but the first ruler to adopt the greek title "Basileus" instead of "Imperator". So i would agree that approximately around the times of Justinian to Heraclius was when things come to a head culturally.

When i look at this topic though, i am always reminded of some peoples in Greece still calling themselves "Rhomaioi" well into the 20th century...