What was the articulation point of the fall of the Roman empire, in which it was finally publicly and commonly recognized as fallen
-
What evidence or sign became apparent that it was over?
I think the problem is that the Roman empire was on the brink of collapse so many times, it would have been weird for someone to think one particular time was special. The troubles of the Third Century, for instance, looked a lot worse at the time than anything after that, but the empire recovered just fine.
The first (of several) sack of Rome in 410 AD was probably a huge red flag. But by then, Rome was not even the capital of the Western Empire any longer. The sack was mostly a symbolic loss, Rome having been able to defend herself for a thousand years.
In hindsight, permanently moving the capital from Rome to Constantinople was what might have turned the page for the empire. It was a complex series of changes, placing a new religion without strong ties to Rome on top, moving the political center of the empire to the East, and freeing the emperors for a while from the pressure of the senate and the people.
I note that the Eastern provinces were economically outperforming the Western ones by large margins even before Barbarian incursions. That the East would run the empire was probably inevitable at some point.
-
October 22, 2014 when AS Roma was defeated in Rome 1-7 against Bayern Munich in the Champions League. That was the last day of the Roman Empire.
Ah but their invasion of Briton was halted on April 10, 2007 by Manchester United who defeated Roma 7-1, destroying their morale and leading to their final defeat by Bayern.
-
There wasn't a single point. The empire lost control over it's territories gradually, losing power and relevance step by step. With one big resurgence along the way.
- 370s large groups of Goths fleeing from the Huns enter the empire. Unlike other barbarians they never fully recognize the authority of the Emperor, and continue living semi-independently in various areas of the empire.
- 395 the split into Easter and Western empire unintentionally becomes permanent. There was never any intention to fully divide it, but the position of Emperor became inherited and Theodosius had two sons (both children at the time)
- Because Emperors were children they become figureheads while the actual power is held by other people (advisers, regents, military commanders). It continues once emperors grow up. In the East this works out, but in the West it results in the collapse of the central authority
- During early 400s the state apparatus in Britain and northern Gaul becomes especially weak and various groups start forming their own "states" still owing fealty to the Empire (and even fighting for the Empire most of the time). Groups of barbarians even reach Africa and establish themselves there.
- 476 - the traditional date. The last Western Emperor is deposed and nobody put in his place, because the position was irrelevant by the time. About this time other semi-independent groups just continue acting on their own
- 490s - the Eastern empire continues on, and they want the West back, so they authorize a group of Ostrogoths led by Theodoric to take over Italy. The Ostrogoths establish their own kingdom, still nominally claiming to be the Western Empire. In pratice fully independent.
- 530s-540s - Justinian decides to finally reclaim the entire Western Empire. This if fairly successful - Italy, Africa and parts of Iberia are reclaimed. However it coincided with the first know instance of bubonic plague which throws everything into chaos and prevents the full reconquest from taking place.
Personally I'd say for most inhabitants of the Western empire, 420s were the turning point. Their immediate rulers became non-Roman, even if in theory they were still under Roman command.
Edit: this is all about the Western empire. East is a longer story and will continue until 600s, 1204 or 1453. Which is a whole another debate.
East is a longer story and will continue until 600s, 1204 or 1453. Which is a whole another debate.
TIL that the eastern roman empire still existed when the first humans arrived in New Zealand.
Neat.
-
What evidence or sign became apparent that it was over?
Do you mean inflection point?
-
What evidence or sign became apparent that it was over?
Consider this.... The Roman Empire still exists through Catholicism with Vatican City (in the city of Rome) as its seat of power.
-
Consider this.... The Roman Empire still exists through Catholicism with Vatican City (in the city of Rome) as its seat of power.
They got conquered... Multiple times, (not permenently, but rome has been brunt down a few times) in terms of organizations of power that were formed from the Roman Empire and were never kicked over, I would argue it would be the orthodox christians in Finland, Norway and Sweden. (Blame the soviets for why that list is small)
-
What evidence or sign became apparent that it was over?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]It's pretty much memetic that there is no agreed-on date.
Like, you could go 1456 and not be wrong, and in multiple ways Russia inherited a lot of Byzantium. At the other end, Rome was in decline loong before it was sacked, like centuries, and actually had had brushes with instability all along in it's Empire period, like the year of four emperors in 69.
Edit: One of the mentioned memes.
when you fall down the stairs, do you timestamp the moment you tripped, the moment you landed at the bottom, or every moment you hit each and every step on the way down?
-
It's pretty much memetic that there is no agreed-on date.
Like, you could go 1456 and not be wrong, and in multiple ways Russia inherited a lot of Byzantium. At the other end, Rome was in decline loong before it was sacked, like centuries, and actually had had brushes with instability all along in it's Empire period, like the year of four emperors in 69.
Edit: One of the mentioned memes.
when you fall down the stairs, do you timestamp the moment you tripped, the moment you landed at the bottom, or every moment you hit each and every step on the way down?
The only people that say Russia inherited Byzantium are the Russians, and the people who definitely wouldn't have agreed are the Byzantines, once they figured out you were talking about them with that nonsense made-up word instead of an actual translation of "Roman"
Tl;d saying Russia inherited Rome is as valid and accurate as saying the Germans are the heirs of the Aryans, and the people saying either have similar goals.
-
The only people that say Russia inherited Byzantium are the Russians, and the people who definitely wouldn't have agreed are the Byzantines, once they figured out you were talking about them with that nonsense made-up word instead of an actual translation of "Roman"
Tl;d saying Russia inherited Rome is as valid and accurate as saying the Germans are the heirs of the Aryans, and the people saying either have similar goals.
Remind me where the eastern Church moved, when Byzantium was still there but in decline? There's also the cultural and aristocratic connections.
Like, you can easily argue the other way as well, since they're not Greek, but it's not as totally groundless as most of Russian nationalism.
-
Remind me where the eastern Church moved, when Byzantium was still there but in decline? There's also the cultural and aristocratic connections.
Like, you can easily argue the other way as well, since they're not Greek, but it's not as totally groundless as most of Russian nationalism.
Okay buddy Russian
-
Okay buddy Russian
It's the facts. You don't have to pay any attention to them if you don't want, I guess.
-
It's the facts. You don't have to pay any attention to them if you don't want, I guess.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Got em right from RT so they and all conclusions derived from them must be true amirite
-
It's pretty much memetic that there is no agreed-on date.
Like, you could go 1456 and not be wrong, and in multiple ways Russia inherited a lot of Byzantium. At the other end, Rome was in decline loong before it was sacked, like centuries, and actually had had brushes with instability all along in it's Empire period, like the year of four emperors in 69.
Edit: One of the mentioned memes.
when you fall down the stairs, do you timestamp the moment you tripped, the moment you landed at the bottom, or every moment you hit each and every step on the way down?
The pope holds a title associated with the roman emperor and controlled Rome until the unification of Italy.
-
The pope holds a title associated with the roman emperor and controlled Rome until the unification of Italy.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Yeah, but there was a 3 century break before the the local Germanic rulers decided to give it to the pope as a temporal domain.
The Church in general is a solid example of a way Rome lived on very directly and relevantly after Roman period ended, it's a good point. It's also why we still have so much of their literature, while that of Parthia is lost. And I should mention that the Byzantine emperor Justinian got close to bringing the western half of the empire back.
