When Did The Empire Fall?

[Kathleenb]

Tuesday I was pondering the long paper due next month for my online senior-level college history class when I realized that I had not yet turned in my 4th short paper. Hmm, when was it due, and on what? Due Monday 3/20... better get crackin'!

 

Prompt: When did the Roman Empire 'fall'? Pick one only.

1. 312 CE, when Constantine converted to Christianity

2. 395 CE, when the Eastern and Western Roman Empire separated

3. 410 CE, when Alaric the Visigoth sacked the city of Rome

4. 476 CE, when Odoacer deposed the boy-emperor Romulus Augustus and sent the imperial trappings to Constantinople

5. 629 CE, when Emperor Heraclius replaces his Latin title of 'Augustus' with the Greek 'Basileos' (which means 'king')

6. 1203 CE, when Constantinople was sacked by the 4th Crusade

7. 1453 CE, when Constantinople was toppled by the Ottomans

8. 1806 CE, when Francis II, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, renounced his imperial title

9. Still exists

 

Supposed to be 500-700 words as a guideline; I'm over, but quality has been more the issue with this prof than strict word count.

 

I'm about 80-90% done I think... still need to verify a few citations, work on some wording, but I think I have the bulk of the content, structure, and organizaiton ... Anyone want to critique it for me? TIA

 

When Did the Roman Empire Tumble?

The question of when the Roman Empire fell assumes both that the Roman Empire did, indeed, fall, and that there was an identifiable event or moment that marked its fall. Certainly there is much room for debate as to the cause of the decay and "fall" of the empire

Edited March 17, 2006 by Kathleenb

[Ursus]

Prompt: When did the Roman Empire 'fall'? Pick one only.

1. 312 CE, when Constantine converted to Christianity

2. 395 CE, when the Eastern and Western Roman Empire separated

3. 410 CE, when Alaric the Visigoth sacked the city of Rome

4. 476 CE, when Odoacer deposed the boy-emperor Romulus Augustus and sent the imperial trappings to Constantinople

5. 629 CE, when Emperor Heraclius replaces his Latin title of 'Augustus' with the Greek 'Basileos' (which means 'king')

6. 1203 CE, when Constantinople was sacked by the 4th Crusade

7. 1453 CE, when Constantinople was toppled by the Ottomans

8. 1806 CE, when Francis II, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, renounced his imperial title

9. Still exists

 

1) Only for Pagan fanatics. I'm a pagan sympathizer, but not a fanatic. As far as the establishment was concerned, Rome had a divine mission to civilize the world and it didn't really matter which particular set of divinities was guiding it. The version of Christianity which triumphed was a very Roman one thanks to Constantine. Besides which, the very Christian Eastern Empire prospered for quite a while.

 

2) Both halves of the empire endured for some time after this. The political split was merely recognizing a cultural reality that had existed for 400 years.

 

3) Alaric the Christian conducted a rather civilized sacking. Only the Senate House was burned in symbolic protest. At this point Rome was no longer the effective political center of the empire anyway.

 

4) This was the final straw from the political unity of the Western Empire, and a plausible answer. But if the Byzantines are considered Roman, then the empire endured for some time.

 

5) Merely a formal recognition that the East was Greek, not Latin.

 

6) Probably the turning point for the Eastern empire. It endured as a shadow, but it still nonetheless endured ...

 

7) The final coup de grace for the Eastern Empire, and another plausible answer.

 

8) It was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire, and can't be considered a continuation of the Roman Empire - not anymore than Tsarist Russia can be considered a "Third Rome" despite it's claims.

 

9) Only in the minds of weird Protestant cults who believe the European Union is a new evil empire.

 

 

In the sum, then, we are narrowed to 4 or 7. The answer depends on how you define Roman and whether or not the Byzantines fall under that definition.

[coolgolfer]

Option 7 is debateable. But, in 1453when Constanple was toppled by the ottomans it effectively ended the Byzantiun empire.

Personally I would have to go with option number 4 when Odoacer deposed the boy-emperor Romulus Augustus and sent the imperial trappings to Constantinople

 

 

 

 

Tuesday I was pondering the long paper due next month for my online senior-level college history class when I realized that I had not yet turned in my 4th short paper. Hmm, when was it due, and on what? Due Monday 3/20... better get crackin'!

 

Prompt: When did the Roman Empire 'fall'? Pick one only.

1. 312 CE, when Constantine converted to Christianity

2. 395 CE, when the Eastern and Western Roman Empire separated

3. 410 CE, when Alaric the Visigoth sacked the city of Rome

4. 476 CE, when Odoacer deposed the boy-emperor Romulus Augustus and sent the imperial trappings to Constantinople

5. 629 CE, when Emperor Heraclius replaces his Latin title of 'Augustus' with the Greek 'Basileos' (which means 'king')

6. 1203 CE, when Constantinople was sacked by the 4th Crusade

7. 1453 CE, when Constantinople was toppled by the Ottomans

8. 1806 CE, when Francis II, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, renounced his imperial title

9. Still exists

[Favonius Cornelius]

2. 395 CE, when the Eastern and Western Roman Empire separated

 

I think this is important really. While it is true both existed after seperation for some time, its clear that there was a steady decline in the west while the east maintained. If the empire could be maintained as a whole, with the whole empire's resources allocated as needed and efficiently, under an efficient ruler, I do not think the empire would have fallen.

 

Of course, that is a lot of 'if' in there, but if we are speaking of possibilities then this one I think is key.

[coolgolfer]

2. 395 CE, when the Eastern and Western Roman Empire separated

 

I think this is important really. While it is true both existed after seperation for some time, its clear that there was a steady decline in the west while the east maintained. If the empire could be maintained as a whole, with the whole empire's resources allocated as needed and efficiently, under an efficient ruler, I do not think the empire would have fallen.

 

Of course, that is a lot of 'if' in there, but if we are speaking of possibilities then this one I think is key.

 

Your point does have some merit. But I just not sure that after Theodusious died in 395AD the empire could have remained whole. Eventhough Rome still had a very able general named Stilicho. I'm not sure if he would have been able to hold the empire togther.

[Tobias]

It's a bit of a contentious question; good arguments can be produced to support option 4 and option 7, whilst options 1,2,3,5 and 6 were merely milestones on Rome's ongoing march.

As Ursus said above, the Holy Roman Empire was no continuation of the Roman Empire at all, it is just that there was a certain...hmmm...romantic (?) idea about adopting the name "Roman Empire", as well as the obivous advantage in the middle ages of possessing the name of an empire that represented authority, power and greatness.

The idea that the Roman Empire still exists is perhaps impractical. The modern Greek state could perhaps be looked upon as the most direct descendant (people in greece continued to call themselves rhomaioi well into the 20th century). But Constantinople, now Istanbul, is still firmly in the hands of the Turkish state. Without it, modern Greece is inevitably seen as the successor to ancient Greece, not (as it perhaps may be said to be culturally) to the last Roman Empire.

Other nations such as Romania and Italy are perhaps too diverse and removed from their Roman roots to be considered genuine successors. As for the European Union, well, knowing so little about it, i don't feel i should comment on that

Edited March 20, 2006 by Tobias

[caldrail]

The so-called 'european state' is an artificial construction that has nothing in common with ancient Rome. Its merely an excuse for modern politicans to go empire building. They can't get away with it up front so they're building it behind the scenes. Unlike SPQR however, 'Europe' has nothing new or special to offer its inhabitants except rules, red tape, fraud, and an easy life for anyone able to get on the gravy train.

 

Its got all the worse elements of ancient rome without any saving grace.

 

Rome evaporated by 476AD but because it was such a strong idea it lived on in peoples culture and psyche. The Byzantines carried the flag but they were less roman than greek. As for the Holy Roman Empire I don't think it had any credibility as a successor other than name only. Even the United States has a stronger claim since it was based on roman ideals.

Edited March 18, 2006 by caldrail

[Kosmo]

For me only 1453 it's an option. This is the moment when a long lived political entity ended. Of course was a very different thing that when it started.

 

I think that evolution it's the key word here. What you define as "the Roman Empire" and when this attributes stop to exist.

 

When the british empire ended?

[Guest Icaromenippus]

In my opinion rome fell when the ottomans sacked constantinople, at least that was the end of the original rome. Many people beyond that time tried to bring it back but none were successful.

[Zurawski]

I think the true Roman empire fell when when the city was sacked by the Visigoths. If there was any original pure romans left in the world at that time they were killed on that day.

 

Though the eastern empire stayed around I dont think it was really roman because if it was it would have

defended it city surely?

 

I think After that day the word 'Rome' is used in the same way as people use 'Caesar'. Holy 'Roman' Empire, 'Kaiser' Wilhelm.

Just People and Empires Crediting themselves to be as great as Ancient people and Empires before them. In my Opinion.

 

P.s This is my first post on this forum and i would just like to say that the information and Discussions on this forum are excellent. Welld done.

[athenian1977]

I agree with the last post . Byzantio was a different story , more Greek than Roman....through the years ofcourse !

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I think the true Roman empire fell when when the city was sacked by the Visigoths. If there was any original pure romans left in the world at that time they were killed on that day.

 

Well, that statement is correct and alluding to about the fall of " The Western Empire." In reality, the Eastern Empire survived, thus the Roman Empire still existed.

 

 

I agree with the last post . Byzantio was a different story , more Greek than Roman....through the years ofcourse !

 

You do realize the Hellenic and Greek people stilled called themselves Roman right? "Byzantine" was invented by the German Hieronymus Wolff in 1562 AD. They called themselves this: Ῥωμανία Roman

[Ursus]

I think the true Roman empire fell when when the city was sacked by the Visigoths. If there was any original pure romans left in the world at that time they were killed on that day.

 

 

What exactly is a "pure Roman?"

[coolgolfer]

What you mean when you say "Though the eastern empire stayed around I dont think it was really roman because if it was it would have defended it city surely?" defended what city? are you refering to Rome itself?

 

I think the true Roman empire fell when when the city was sacked by the Visigoths. If there was any original pure romans left in the world at that time they were killed on that day.

 

Though the eastern empire stayed around I dont think it was really roman because if it was it would have

defended it city surely?

 

I think After that day the word 'Rome' is used in the same way as people use 'Caesar'. Holy 'Roman' Empire, 'Kaiser' Wilhelm.

Just People and Empires Crediting themselves to be as great as Ancient people and Empires before them. In my Opinion.

 

P.s This is my first post on this forum and i would just like to say that the information and Discussions on this forum are excellent. Welld done.

 

 

The city fell because the political landscape had changed dramactically or for many other reasons that has been disscussed in this forum and many other forums.

 

From the time the empire was split for administration purposes due to Diocletion's many reforms, the western and eastern parts of the empire up until 395AD pretty much worked together pretty well except when the empire was united under Constantine the Great and even under Theodosious.

 

But the after Emperor Theodosious died and the empire was effectively/officially split into two and ruled by his two sons, the empire began to play politics against one another thanks to the son's advisors that were responsible to be gaurdians to Theodosius's sons per Theodosiu wish. Arcadius was eighteen when he assumed the throne in the east. We do not know whether or not he was ready for the responsibilities. Granted the concept of assigning guardians was good but Arcadius's advisor who was Rufinus and Honoriius's advosor was Stilicho who really didn't like oneanother. Stilicho at times tried to help the east out militarily, but Rufinus convinced Arcadius to refuse support. Basically Rufinus was power hungry and so forth.

 

The eastern roman empire was a mixture of roman and greek, more greek then roman, but around the time-frame of when the Western Roman Empire existed the population identified themselves more with roman ideas and customs and so forth.

 

The reign of Justinian was an extremely significant period. It marked the final end of the Roman empire; the establishment of the new, Byzantine empire. The empire was united under the Eastern emperor in theory, Justinian tried to make it so in fact. His armies invaded the Vandal, Ostrogothic, and Visigothic kingdoms in turn, and, in a series of bitter wars (540-554), reconquered much of the Mediterranean lands of the West. At the time, it seemed as if he had very little choice in the matter. In theory at least, the Germanic kings ruled as viceroys of the Eastern emperors. There was a difficult problem in that the Germans were Arians, practicing and preaching a form of Christianity considered heretical by the established Roman Church. The Vandals were the most zealous of the Arians and were quick to seize orthodox churches in order to convert them into Arian places of worship. The Vandals were so few in number that they resorted to terror in order to keep their subjects in order. The Vandalic kingdom became a police state in which orthodox Christians were striped of property, rights, and even freedom and life. When a delegation of orthodox Christians from Africa appealed to Justinian to fulfill his role as defender of the faith, he decided that the time had come to resolve the peculiar situation and bring the West back under real Roman control.

Although Justinian was committed to the idea of a Roman empire, Justinian recognized that his realms were basically Greek and that the imperial administration would be more effective, if the fact were recognized. Once the government stopped forcing the use of the Latin language and Roman institutions upon its people, the Eastern empire rapidly became more Eastern in its customs and outlook

 

Therefore , when Justinian died in 565 and new invaders entered the west, the eastern empire did very little to stop them. Neither westerners nor easterners had any further interest in restoring the empire.

[Furius Venator]

Deleted as irrelevant, the work's already been submitted. Apologies for my stupidity in not checking that first.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Furius Venator