# When Did Rome Fall?



## Zardnaar (Oct 7, 2021)

As the title says. When did the Roman empire fall?

 The traditional date is 476CE although others say 480CE. 

 In recent decades 1453 is also picking up steam as the Byzantines Empire was an investigation by western historians as they identified as Roman and we're a political continuation of that state. 

  One could even claim 1460/61 as the last remnants of the Byzantine state fell to the Ottomans (Morea and Trebizond). 

  Others claim the 6th or 7th century with the last latin areas left and the institutions, legions and language fell out of use in the Eastern Empire. 

 Then you have remnants such as the Catholic Church, San Marino and Venice also surving the fall in the west. 

 Finally apparently some people on the Greek Islands as late as the 19th century identified as Romans vs Hellenes around the Greek War of independence. They were nominally under Turkish rule but had carried on much as they had since the fall of Constantinople. 

 For me I think of 1453 although I find it funny some people as late as the 19th century could plausibly identify as Roman.


----------



## Dioltach (Oct 7, 2021)

Well, the Holy Roman Empire was supposed to be the official continuation of the Western Roman Empire, and it lasted (at least in name) until 1806.


----------



## Janx (Oct 7, 2021)

Rome fell at the earliest point that people debated it hadn't fallen.

Because if a nation has such poor marketing that people think it's fallen, it has indeed.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Oct 7, 2021)

Late last year/early 2021, when they finally allowed a Starbucks to open in Rome.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 7, 2021)

*When Did Rome Fall?*

March 25, 2007, when the last episode of _Rome _aired.

_Deadwood_, _Rome _.... HBO made some poor choices back then. Two seasons? I'd still watch it now!


----------



## DemoMonkey (Oct 7, 2021)

Shortly after the Enterprise NCC-1701 visited.


----------



## Dioltach (Oct 7, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> *When Did Rome Fall?*
> 
> March 25, 2007, when the last episode of _Rome _aired.
> 
> _Deadwood_, _Rome _.... HBO made some poor choices back then. Two seasons? I'd still watch it now!



So you're saying Rome didn't fall, it was dropped?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 7, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> So you're saying Rome didn't fall, it was dropped?




Technically, it was ....#cancelled.

Different times! Different words!


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 7, 2021)

15 March 1917, with the abdication of Nicholas II.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 7, 2021)

Rome Didn't Fall When You Think It Did. Here's Why That Fabricated History Still Matters Today
					

In September of 476 AD, the barbarian commander Odoacer forced the teenaged Western Roman emperor Romulus Augustus to resign his office.  The Constantinopolitan chronicler Marcellinus Comes would write in the 510s that when “Odoacer, king of the Goths, took control of Rome” the “Western Empire...




					www.yahoo.com


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 8, 2021)

What do you consider the Roman empire to be?

While the traditional date of September 4, 476, when Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustulus, has many caveats, it is a good of an exact date as you will get for a long, complicated historical process like the fall of the Western Empire. No specific alternative late 5th century date has a sufficiently superior claim to be worth dispensing with tradition over. If, like me, you consider the Roman Empire to be defined as the Latin speaking empire centered around the city of Rome that's a solid way to think of its fall.

The continuing adventures of the Grecophone Eastern empire are the major complicating factor. Certainly, in spite of the formal trappings of Romanness, when the Byzantine empire fell in the 15th century it was not really the Roman empire as it is generally concieved anymore except as a matter of legal and political fiction, but at what point in the intervening centuries did it cease to be sufficiently Roman to "really be the same empire" is a question that can not be answered on a general level. You can focus on some particular element of Roman society and possibly get firm dates for when you feel it ended, but on a general level the Eastern half of the empire didn't fall, it gradually transformed into a different imperial animal that eventually fell.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 8, 2021)

So, what you are all saying is that it didn't so much fall as saunter vaguely downwards.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2021)

Umbran said:


> So, what you are all saying is that it didn't so much fall as saunter vaguely downwards.



The only joke in the thread that actually landed.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 8, 2021)

Benjamin Olson said:


> What do you consider the Roman empire to be?
> 
> While the traditional date of September 4, 476, when Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustulus, has many caveats, it is a good of an exact date as you will get for a long, complicated historical process like the fall of the Western Empire. No specific alternative late 5th century date has a sufficiently superior claim to be worth dispensing with tradition over. If, like me, you consider the Roman Empire to be defined as the Latin speaking empire centered around the city of Rome that's a solid way to think of its fall.
> 
> The continuing adventures of the Grecophone Eastern empire are the major complicating factor. Certainly, in spite of the formal trappings of Romanness, when the Byzantine empire fell in the 15th century it was not really the Roman empire as it is generally concieved anymore except as a matter of legal and political fiction, but at what point in the intervening centuries did it cease to be sufficiently Roman to "really be the same empire" is a question that can not be answered on a general level. You can focus on some particular element of Roman society and possibly get firm dates for when you feel it ended, but on a general level the Eastern half of the empire didn't fall, it gradually transformed into a different imperial animal that eventually fell.





 Well it ceased being latin in the 6th and 7th centuries. 

  Well probably long before then but they lost Italia and most of the Roman institutions and ceased using latin. 

 But it was still governed by Roman citizens and the rulers considered themselves Roman.


----------



## Hex08 (Oct 8, 2021)

After too many beers....


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 8, 2021)

Hex08 said:


> After too many beers....


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Oct 8, 2021)

Umbran said:


> So, what you are all saying is that it didn't so much fall as saunter vaguely downwards.



Indeed, it gradually declined, the is no actual cut off date. The remnants of the Roman empire still exist within Western culture.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 8, 2021)

Sack of Rome (410) - Wikipedia 

Rome itself - 410 AD sack of Rome. 

Western Roman Empire based in Ravenna faded out over the 5th century. Definitely gone by AD 476.

Eastern Roman Empire - AD 1453 sack of Constantinople - Fall of Constantinople - Wikipedia

I don't count WRE remnants (final holdout in North Wales fell to Germanic invaders led by Edward I! Edward I of England - Wikipedia)  or ERE remnants in Trebizond, the Greek islands etc.


----------



## turnip_farmer (Oct 8, 2021)

I visited on holiday in about 2014 or so. Can confirm that Rome was still there at the time.


----------



## Dioltach (Oct 8, 2021)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Late last year/early 2021, when they finally allowed a Starbucks to open in Rome.



The first time I visited Rome, I was surprised to see a MacDonald's opposite the Pantheon.

And the best view of the Pyramids of Giza and the Sphynx was from the Pizza Hut by the car park.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 8, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> I visited on holiday in about 2014 or so. Can confirm that Rome was still there at the time.



The report of the fall of Rome was an exaggeration.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 8, 2021)

Nikosandros said:


> The report of the fall of Rome was an exaggeration.




Goodness, no.  Rome is beautiful in autumn!  Wonderful walking weather, still warm enough for gelato...


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Oct 8, 2021)

There's something so incongruous about the ultra-modern butting up against the ultra-ancient. Like, I can handle seeing a McDonalds in London right by a building from the 18th century, but when you start reaching into millennia, it feels somehow disrespectful.



Dioltach said:


> The first time I visited Rome, I was surprised to see a MacDonald's opposite the Pantheon.
> 
> And the best view of the Pyramids of Giza and the Sphynx was from the Pizza Hut by the car park.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 8, 2021)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> There's something so incongruous about the ultra-modern butting up against the ultra-ancient. Like, I can handle seeing a McDonalds in London right by a building from the 18th century, but when you start reaching into millennia, it feels somehow disrespectful.




Rome doesn't have much of a choice in the matter.  1800 year old structures are littered all over the place.  They can't have a city if they can't put modern stuff next to it...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Oct 8, 2021)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> There's something so incongruous about the ultra-modern butting up against the ultra-ancient. Like, I can handle seeing a McDonalds in London right by a building from the 18th century, but when you start reaching into millennia, it feels somehow disrespectful.




I have the opposite reaction: it is part of the local environment. We aren't nearly as ancient in terms of architecture but here in New England we have a lot of old houses, old buildings, right up next to modern ones. It is just part of our history. If you go to Italy, Rome is part of the history and there is going to be a blending between ancient and modern. It can also be very artificial to create boundaries around this stuff. We have places like that in New England as well (lots of places have an 'old town' section). They are fun, and very touristy but there is also something not quite real about them.


----------



## Jmarso (Oct 8, 2021)

476 is accepted as the 'official' historical date, but the truth is that it was a long, painful process that began with the fall of the Republic and rise of Empire all the way through to the Renaissance. I've actually read Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' from start to finish, and it is a morass I wouldn't wish on anyone else. 4 months worth of reading time I wish I could have back. Not recommended, mostly because its a sad tale of generation after generation repeating the mistakes of their forebears.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Oct 8, 2021)

Cities, perforce, must have the old and the new rubbing elbows. And there's some charm to that, absolutely. But I have no love for chain restaurants, and find them generally an intrusive blight. One that is all the more evident when situated opposite a church that's been in the same spot for 500 years.



Umbran said:


> Rome doesn't have much of a choice in the matter.  1800 year old structures are littered all over the place.  They can't have a city if they can't put modern stuff next to it...






Bedrockgames said:


> I have the opposite reaction: it is part of the local environment. We aren't nearly as ancient in terms of architecture but here in New England we have a lot of old houses, old buildings, right up next to modern ones. It is just part of our history. If you go to Italy, Rome is part of the history and there is going to be a blending between ancient and modern. It can also be very artificial to create boundaries around this stuff. We have places like that in New England as well (lots of places have an 'old town' section). They are fun, and very touristy but there is also something not quite real about them.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 8, 2021)

Jmarso said:


> 476 is accepted as the 'official' historical date, but the truth is that it was a long, painful process that began with the fall of the Republic and rise of Empire all the way through to the Renaissance. I've actually read Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' from start to finish, and it is a morass I wouldn't wish on anyone else. 4 months worth of reading time I wish I could have back. Not recommended, mostly because its a sad tale of generation after generation repeating the mistakes of their forebears.




 It's also a product if it's time taking the available sources at face value. 

 I don't think the decline was irreversible until the third century iirc.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 8, 2021)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Cities, perforce, must have the old and the new rubbing elbows. And there's some charm to that, absolutely. But I have no love for chain restaurants, and find them generally an intrusive blight. One that is all the more evident when situated opposite a church that's been in the same spot for 500 years.




 Same ipiniin but they seem to tone down the signs etc in historical places. 

  Old here is basically anything from the Victorian era. They pulled a lot of it down in the 60s and earthquakes as well wiped some out.

 Mother used to guide tourists it was funny sometimes. "This is our oldest building blah blah blah" tourist "my house is a hundred years older".


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 8, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Same opinion but they seem to tone down the signs etc in historical places.
> 
> Old here is basically anything from the Victorian era. They pulled a lot of it down in the 60ss and earthquakes as well wiped some out. One town is 1930's art deco, another city like ok's kind of modern, my city cbd is a snapshot of 1904.
> 
> Mother used to guide tourists it was funny sometimes. "This is our oldest building blah blah blah" tourist "my house is a hundred years older".


----------



## turnip_farmer (Oct 8, 2021)

Jmarso said:


> 476 is accepted as the 'official' historical date, but the truth is that it was a long, painful process that began with the fall of the Republic and rise of Empire all the way through to the Renaissance. I've actually read Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' from start to finish, and it is a morass I wouldn't wish on anyone else. 4 months worth of reading time I wish I could have back. Not recommended, mostly because its a sad tale of generation after generation repeating the mistakes of their forebears.



What? Don't listen to this post, Enworld. _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ is a beautiful book. The historiography is outdated, but the prose is wonderful. It's a delight to read.

Added by edit: In fact, now that I think about it, I reread it after I visited Rome. I remember standing on the Capitoline Hill looking at the ruins of the old forum and being reminded of Gibbon's description of Poggius surveying the ruin of Rome from the same spot and contemplating the city's fall some 600 years previously. Gibbon talks then about the beginnings of the transformation of the ancient ruins into a tourist attraction for foreigners (this was in the 18th century):

"The map, the description, the monuments of ancient Rome, have been elucidated by the diligence of the antiquarian and the student: and the footsteps of heroes, the relics, not of superstition, but of empire, are devoutly visited by a new race of pilgrims from the remote, and once savage countries of the North."


----------



## dragoner (Oct 10, 2021)

What was the whole Philip K Dick book where they were like "Rome never fell!" though that was getting weird about religion. I think by the crisis of the 3rd century, the Roman Empire ceases to be what we would consider the "classical" Rome. Later, with the plague of Justinian, it's the end of the classical urban culture that we attribute to the period. 476 is a good date, because the political control is finished, though to me, and Edward Gibbon's, probably the most tragic moment were entire libraries being burned due to the edicts against magic.


----------



## Yenrak (Oct 10, 2021)

I think it’s more useful to think of the question geographically. In some areas, Rome fell earlier than others. It was fallen by the 6th century in Britain, for instance, while it carried on elsewhere.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 10, 2021)

Rome fell about a minute and twenty seconds into this clip:


----------



## Aeson (Oct 10, 2021)

If Rome fell, I'm sure a lawyer is trying to find someone to sue.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 10, 2021)

Aeson said:


> If Rome fell, I'm sure a lawyer is trying to find someone to sue.



You may be entitled.....


----------



## Aeson (Oct 10, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> You may be entitled.....



Have you or your Emperor experienced death or dismemberment? Call me NOW!


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Oct 10, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Sack of Rome (410) - Wikipedia



The Sack of Rome is a red herring. The city was looted, but it continued to exist, and so did the empire.


----------



## Dioltach (Oct 10, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The city was looted, but it continued to exist,



According to some, it still does. There are tales told by travellers from strange lands ...


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 10, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> According to some, it still does. There are tales told by travellers from strange lands ...




 My map says "here there be dragons".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 10, 2021)

Aeson said:


> Have you or your Emperor experienced death or dismemberment? Call me NOW!



“Call I (VIII VIII VIII) IV VII IX-VII VIII II II.  That’s I (VIII VIII VIII) IV VII IX-STAB.”


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 10, 2021)

IX I I (USA)
I I I (NZ)
IX IX IX (UK)

 Aussie is screwed (000).


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 10, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> My map says "here there be dragons".



Haven't seen any dragons lately, but we do have garbage and potholes in copious amounts.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Oct 10, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> What? Don't listen to this post, Enworld. _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ is a beautiful book. The historiography is outdated, but the prose is wonderful. It's a delight to read.
> 
> Added by edit: In fact, now that I think about it, I reread it after I visited Rome. I remember standing on the Capitoline Hill looking at the ruins of the old forum and being reminded of Gibbon's description of Poggius surveying the ruin of Rome from the same spot and contemplating the city's fall some 600 years previously. Gibbon talks then about the beginnings of the transformation of the ancient ruins into a tourist attraction for foreigners (this was in the 18th century):
> 
> "The map, the description, the monuments of ancient Rome, have been elucidated by the diligence of the antiquarian and the student: and the footsteps of heroes, the relics, not of superstition, but of empire, are devoutly visited by a new race of pilgrims from the remote, and once savage countries of the North."




I loved reading the Decline and Fall. Like you say it is outdated and you would want to read something more up to date for some of the specific facts, but it is an important book and one that shaped how history is done. It is worth reading for the prose, the wit, but also to see something that contributed to the discipline of history. When I was a history student it was assigned for one of our classes (and I accidentally read the whole thing because I didn't know we were supposed to read the condensed version---which turned out to be a good mistake because I think reading the whole thing really made a difference for my appreciation of it). When you take historiography* it is one of several key books that come up as significant. Again it isn't current scholarship, and his thesis about why the empire fell isn't widely accepted (but grand theories like generally aren't embraced anymore). It is still considered a classic history book . It has been a long time since I was a student, but I recall one of the big reasons we discussed him in the historiography course was the importance he placed on primary sources. Definitely if you read it, read about its place in historiography and read about what it gets wrong, because it was published around the time of the revolution. With any older history book, you want to understand its context and importance (you do read something like decline and fall differently than you would say a modern history book written on the decline and fall---though even those all belong to a particular school of thought usually, and should still be read critically). 

*historiography is just the study of history, its history and methods---for example if you read a historiography of middle eastern history it would likely be a book that covers all the important history papers and books about the middle east and describe how approaches and interpretations have changed over the years). I you read a general historiography book or took a general course, you would get an overview of the history of history as a discipline, examine key works, and read about all the different schools of thought. I am sure lots of people know this but I didn't want to just throw a bit of jargon in without explaining it


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Oct 10, 2021)

Rome never fell.

Its institutions became theocratic; its method of control, ecclesiastical.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 10, 2021)

Give me a few more turns and Rome will fall in Civ VI

Venerable Bede — 'As long as _the Coliseum stands_, Rome shall _stand_; _when the Coliseum_ falls, Rome will fall; _when_ Rome falls, the whole world will fall.'


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 11, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> Give me a few more turns and Rome will fall in Civ VI
> 
> Venerable Bede — 'As long as _the Coliseum stands_, Rome shall _stand_; _when the Coliseum_ falls, Rome will fall; _when_ Rome falls, the whole world will fall.'




 Civ VI that's flash I like Civ3.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Nov 11, 2021)

Well...it depends.  What exactly do you classify as "The Roman Empire".  Rome the city or the land conquered by it?  The Western or Eastern empire?  The Byzantines?  The Roman Catholic Church?  In some ways, all of these qualify.  The only one that doesn't really is the Holy Roman Empire.  That's really the start of the German state.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 11, 2021)

Byzantine was a later term. They saw themselves as Roman. I wouldn't count the church either.


----------



## GreyLord (Nov 14, 2021)

I would probably say a new date which is 1204.

By the time Rome fell, the capital of the Roman empire actually had changed to Constantinople.  In it's later existence of the late 2nd century onwards, Rome focused even more heavily on it's four quarters (it had been separated into four quarters for a while, which caused all sorts of problems at times with Western vs. Eastern Emperors, the catalogue of discourses and wars between the various factions...etc) which were primarily the North and South and East and West, making it the Northwest, Southwest, North East, and South East quarters.   By the time Rome Fell, we could say it was more of a focus of the Eastern portion of the Empire, with the Western portion (of which Rome was a part of) having fallen in repute and economics for at least a century.

The real heart and what was considered the empire at that point was in the East.   That empire continued for several more centuries.

Rome, the city fell, but ONLY Europe (and specifically Europe that was constrained by the Roman Catholic Church which had a vested interest from the inheritance of Charlemagne) actually considered that meaning that the Roman Empire fell...or that Rome fell.  This was for legitimacy in their part, as they were trying to show legitimacy of rule and right...a legitimacy rejected by others.

However, when trouble hits, as it did, sometimes lines blur.  In the late 11th century, Rome was in trouble.  They had incursions from tribes that were threatening it's capital and so it asked it's brothers in Christianity for aid.  Ironically, rather than just aid the slowly fading royalty of the Byzantines (who were the Romans), they went on crusade (now known as the first crusade) and went on to cause trouble all along the way until they left on the Southern borders and went on to conquer Jerusalem.

This same idea of crusade eventually led to the 4th crusade, where the final remnants of Rome, it's rulers and aristocracy were overthrown and replaced by Roman Catholic counterparts and the ideas that the Roman Catholic Church expoused in claiming that this was the Byzantine...not the Roman...empire.

It was at that point I think that the old Roman empire truly finally died in it's death throes (death throes that had been ongoing for several centuries at that point) and a short lived Roman Catholic nation existed.

If one doesn't accept that, I'll take the later date where it falls from Christian hands to Islamic hands, but I don't think the fall of the city of Rome actually was the Fall of the Roman empire as has been popular amongst nations heavily influenced by the Roman Catholics in their noted history books during the 18th - 20th centuries.  It is an idea that I think is finally starting to fade away as other historians and ways of looking at history are finally being seen by the forefront of history today and a wider acceptance of history beyond that of Western European dialogue is finally surfacing.


----------



## dragoner (Nov 14, 2021)

Don't forget the "Seljuks of Rome" Sultanate of Rum - Wikipedia


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 14, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Don't forget the "Seljuks of Rome" Sultanate of Rum - Wikipedia




 They just claimed the title with no real ties to Rome.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 14, 2021)

GreyLord said:


> I would probably say a new date which is 1204.
> 
> By the time Rome fell, the capital of the Roman empire actually had changed to Constantinople.  In it's later existence of the late 2nd century onwards, Rome focused even more heavily on it's four quarters (it had been separated into four quarters for a while, which caused all sorts of problems at times with Western vs. Eastern Emperors, the catalogue of discourses and wars between the various factions...etc) which were primarily the North and South and East and West, making it the Northwest, Southwest, North East, and South East quarters.   By the time Rome Fell, we could say it was more of a focus of the Eastern portion of the Empire, with the Western portion (of which Rome was a part of) having fallen in repute and economics for at least a century.
> 
> ...





GreyLord said:


> I would probably say a new date which is 1204.
> 
> By the time Rome fell, the capital of the Roman empire actually had changed to Constantinople.  In it's later existence of the late 2nd century onwards, Rome focused even more heavily on it's four quarters (it had been separated into four quarters for a while, which caused all sorts of problems at times with Western vs. Eastern Emperors, the catalogue of discourses and wars between the various factions...etc) which were primarily the North and South and East and West, making it the Northwest, Southwest, North East, and South East quarters.   By the time Rome Fell, we could say it was more of a focus of the Eastern portion of the Empire, with the Western portion (of which Rome was a part of) having fallen in repute and economics for at least a century.
> 
> ...




 Apparently chariot races were run up until 1204.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Nov 15, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> IX I I (USA)
> I I I (NZ)
> IX IX IX (UK)
> 
> Aussie is screwed (000).



Yeah, the Indian mathematician that 'invented' the zero was still a 'few' years off.   lol


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 15, 2021)

So, i asked historian/ author Doctor Harry Turttledove and here is his response


----------



## Thunderfoot (Nov 15, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> So, i asked historian/ author Doctor Harry Turttledove and here is his response



Meh, what does he know?   Lmao


----------



## dragoner (Nov 15, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> They just claimed the title with no real ties to Rome.



What are real ties to Rome?


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 15, 2021)

Thunderfoot said:


> Meh, what does he know?   Lmao



well having a PhD in Byzantine history and his beard would give his thoughts some weight lol


----------



## dragoner (Nov 15, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> well having a PhD in Byzantine history and his beard would give his thoughts some weight lol



They correspond basically with the crisis of the 3rd century, to post plague of justinian 'fall of the classical urban culture'. Which in fact is quite a bit of time ...


----------



## Umbran (Nov 15, 2021)

There's only one appropriate answer to, "When did Rome fall?"

"When I commanded that it would be so."


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 15, 2021)

dragoner said:


> What are real ties to Rome?




 Some sort of tie in to the Roman state apparatus. 

 Things that claimed the title due to conquest ir whatever don't really count. 

 So no Sultanate of Rum, Holy Roman Empire Moscow as Third Rome etc. 

 I think there's multiple dayes one could claim personally I go with Byzantine as it was a political continuation of Rome, were Roman citizens and saw themselves as Roman.

 The Byzantine fragments are somewhat plausible as a state while the last Romans are somewhat plausible as late as the 19th century when inhabitants of the last areas of the Byzantine state still saw themselves as Romans over Hellenes.


----------



## dragoner (Nov 16, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Some sort of tie in to the Roman state apparatus.
> 
> Things that claimed the title due to conquest ir whatever don't really count.
> 
> ...



I don't know, I think the Scipios would take a dim view of a bunch of Greeks, putting the Greek Bible on a throne, and calling it Rome. The Sultanate, and later Ottoman Rumelia were named for it being Romans in Roman lands. I think if one were to say Constantinople inherited the mantle of the Imperial city, the Frankokratia ended that, it had been sacked worse than Rome ever had until Charles V's Landskneckt. None of it really matters, though the irony of westerners defending the east is funny, because the 1204 date puts the east's reign about 2x the time of Rome in antiquity.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 16, 2021)

dragoner said:


> I don't know, I think the Scipios would take a dim view of a bunch of Greeks, putting the Greek Bible on a throne, and calling it Rome. The Sultanate, and later Ottoman Rumelia were named for it being Romans in Roman lands. I think if one were to say Constantinople inherited the mantle of the Imperial city, the Frankokratia ended that, it had been sacked worse than Rome ever had until Charles V's Landskneckt. None of it really matters, though the irony of westerners defending the east is funny, because the 1204 date puts the east's reign about 2x the time of Rome in antiquity.




 By the time though that the empire became Greek to be Roman was citizenship. 

 Say if the USA had dual capitals LA and Washington. They lose Washington, then LA then they get it LA back before being wiped 200 years later. 

 Still the American state yes? If they got invaded and wiped out by Canada or Mexico the rulers of those nations are a different political entity entirely.

 And then someone writes a book 1000 years later renaming the USA minus Washington regardless that the remain US political entity still sees themselves as American and is a political continuation of that state (just smaller).

 Replace America with any other nation just the example I used.


----------



## dragoner (Nov 16, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> By the time though that the empire became Greek to be Roman was citizenship.
> 
> Say if the USA had dual capitals LA and Washington. They lose Washington, then LA then they get it LA back before being wiped 200 years later.
> 
> ...



I don't think Americans would consider that America, and in particular, if the government had changed from the old forms, to a dictatorship, with a different language, and new religion. Plus upholding this new religion as the "law of the land" with even more lurid punishments, such as being strapped under a donkey, after your eyes gouged out. If someone wrote a book a thousand years later, separating, or conflating the two, that is fine in its own way. A lot of history is just invention for propaganda purposes, iirc it's Napoleon that says history is a lie agreed upon. I listened to an interview with a historian as well that said even if institutions bear the same name, really 200 years later they are completely different, and it is people liking to think they are similar, that is more important.

I recently helped a young women with her history work, about the Ukraine in 1945, and she had a translated work by an American, of documents from the main archives in Podolsk. They also had the originals published, and some, due to being hand copied, or whatever, except the translation was filled with errors, for a variety of reasons, from lazy writing, to lack of understanding due to context. I can very much see a similarity, where one would mix Russia with the Soviets, as the same as with Rome, and Byzantium; while they are similar, there are also crucial differences.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 16, 2021)

dragoner said:


> I don't think Americans would consider that America, and in particular, if the government had changed from the old forms, to a dictatorship, with a different language, and new religion. Plus upholding this new religion as the "law of the land" with even more lurid punishments, such as being strapped under a donkey, after your eyes gouged out. If someone wrote a book a thousand years later, separating, or conflating the two, that is fine in its own way. A lot of history is just invention for propaganda purposes, iirc it's Napoleon that says history is a lie agreed upon. I listened to an interview with a historian as well that said even if institutions bear the same name, really 200 years later they are completely different, and it is people liking to think they are similar, that is more important.
> 
> I recently helped a young women with her history work, about the Ukraine in 1945, and she had a translated work by an American, of documents from the main archives in Podolsk. They also had the originals published, and some, due to being hand copied, or whatever, except the translation was filled with errors, for a variety of reasons, from lazy writing, to lack of understanding due to context. I can very much see a similarity, where one would mix Russia with the Soviets, as the same as with Rome, and Byzantium; while they are similar, there are also crucial differences.




 Things change over time. Same polity though over that 1000+ years. There's a direct political line of succession from Constantine I to XI.

 England's been a political entity for over 1000 years and things are a bit different now vs Alfred yes?

 In our hypothetical American Byzantine replacement if that state changed government by it's own government (eg not via invasion,revolt, coup etc) and the religion changed it's still the same political entity is it not?


----------



## S'mon (Nov 16, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> England's been a political entity for over 1000 years and things are a bit different now vs Alfred yes?




Official (ie State Narrative) England starts in 1066. Hence I learned in undergrad Land Law that the Crown claims to own all our land 'by right of Conquest'. So a bit under 1000 years.


----------



## dragoner (Nov 16, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Things change over time. Same polity though over that 1000+ years. There's a direct political line of succession from Constantine I to XI.
> 
> England's been a political entity for over 1000 years and things are a bit different now vs Alfred yes?
> 
> In our hypothetical American Byzantine replacement if that state changed government by it's own government (eg not via invasion,revolt, coup etc) and the religion changed it's still the same political entity is it not?



I think it is fine either way, say it is, or it isn't, as a case could be made for either, with the hypothetical or in reality. I mean Byzantium is a very poetic form of saying the Eastern Roman Empire, and most who had studied the subject, that is the first thing they learn. There is not exactly a direct lineage between Constantine I and Constantine XI, some Basileus, gained the throne by right of assassination, the situation was highly chaotic. Seems a bit of a stretch to call it a 'direct political line of succession'. Nobody is arguing there is not continuity; though it almost could be argued the Ottomans were the same, as they adopted much of what was the Byzantine way into their own, such as the Cataphract, become the Sipahi. I would say not in a lot of ways, except to mention the similarity was there.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Nov 17, 2021)

I think the one thing we can all agree is Rome fell....just not when.  lmao


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 17, 2021)

dragoner said:


> I think it is fine either way, say it is, or it isn't, as a case could be made for either, with the hypothetical or in reality. I mean Byzantium is a very poetic form of saying the Eastern Roman Empire, and most who had studied the subject, that is the first thing they learn. There is not exactly a direct lineage between Constantine I and Constantine XI, some Basileus, gained the throne by right of assassination, the situation was highly chaotic. Seems a bit of a stretch to call it a 'direct political line of succession'. Nobody is arguing there is not continuity; though it almost could be argued the Ottomans were the same, as they adopted much of what was the Byzantine way into their own, such as the Cataphract, become the Sipahi. I would say not in a lot of ways, except to mention the similarity was there.




 I said political line not bloodline. 

 You can draw a line from the republic to Constantine XI. You could argue that line splite in 1204 with Trebizond. 

 I can't recall if those rulers of Trebizond claimed to be rulers of the empire so they were a successor state I suppose. I don't think they did but I can't recall


 The west downplayed it both by renaming the empire later and calling it the empire if the Greeks. 


 Hell until Charlemagne there was only one pire in Christiandom.


----------



## dragoner (Nov 17, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> I said political line not bloodline.
> 
> You can draw a line from the republic to Constantine XI. You could argue that line splite in 1204 with Trebizond.
> 
> ...



Yes, I meant it for others to read, so that they would not think of the Emperors of having one bloodline, some were of quite humble origins. I mean, also, being a Slav, the Byzantines are more culturally relevant to me, and westerners, the western Empire, being more relevant to them, are going to have more focus on it. Seen it from both sides too, my Father used to say there were only three European peoples: Slavs, Greeks (ie Mediterranean), and Germans.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 17, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Yes, I meant it for others to read, so that they would not think of the Emperors of having one bloodline, some were of quite humble origins. I mean, also, being a Slav, the Byzantines are more culturally relevant to me, and westerners, the western Empire, being more relevant to them, are going to have more focus on it. Seen it from both sides too, my Father used to say there were only three European peoples: Slavs, Greeks (ie Mediterranean), and Germans.




 Those are the three big ones but you've got Basque, Greeks, Finn's, Magyars etc as well. 

 There's also some near extinct bromance languages in the Balkans as well derived from Latin. Greek survived in parts of Italy , USSR and Turkey into the 20th Century.

 Rome's legacy.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 26, 2021)




----------



## Ryujin (Nov 27, 2021)

Rome did not fall. It was pushed.









						Horatio Cane Csi Miami GIF - Horatio Cane Csi Miami Yeah - Discover & Share GIFs
					

Click to view the GIF




					tenor.com


----------



## dragoner (Nov 27, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Those are the three big ones but you've got Basque, Greeks, Finn's, Magyars etc as well.
> 
> There's also some near extinct bromance languages in the Balkans as well derived from Latin. Greek survived in parts of Italy , USSR and Turkey into the 20th Century.
> 
> Rome's legacy.



Rome's legacy is their literature, songs and wine were their real weapons of conquest, over the gladius or pilum. They brought perfumes, oils, luxuries of a civilized world: This Woman Is a Hair-Style Archaeologist


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 27, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Rome's legacy is their literature, songs and wine were their real weapons of conquest, over the gladius or pilum. They brought perfumes, oils, luxuries of a civilized world: This Woman Is a Hair-Style Archaeologist




 Main legacy is this alphabet we're using. Thanks to Rome gia Greece via Phoenicia.


----------



## dragoner (Nov 27, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> Main legacy is this alphabet we're using. Thanks to Rome gia Greece via Phoenicia.



I am also using Cyrillic in another window. Though for the Romans and Greeks, they named our world. In study of cultures, one can see, such as with horse for example, when one comes into contact, because they exchange words and ideas.


----------



## Aeson (Dec 3, 2021)

According to some loon on Tik Tok Rome never existed. 
"History TikToker Sparks Debate Saying Ancient Rome 'Didn't Exist'" History TikToker sparks debate saying Ancient Rome 'didn't exist'


----------



## Dioltach (Dec 3, 2021)

Wow, it's all so clear now! Those ruined remains all around the Mediterranean and Western Europe are a cover-up to hide evidence of aliens!

Possibly Quegaars.


----------



## Guest 7032719 (Dec 3, 2021)

.


----------



## ART! (Dec 3, 2021)

Put differently: when did Rome autumn?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 3, 2021)

Aeson said:


> According to some loon on Tik Tok Rome never existed.
> "History TikToker Sparks Debate Saying Ancient Rome 'Didn't Exist'" History TikToker sparks debate saying Ancient Rome 'didn't exist'




I still remember in my ancient history class we had a student who gave a presentation on how ancient Egypt was created by aliens (and this was before all those ancient aliens shows). The professor explained the evidence against the idea (basically saying it wasn't true) but I have to say, it was very engaging and entertaining even if I found it a wildly inaccurate explanation. Also the student took the instructor's dismantling of his presentation pretty well (overall it was a very friendly and light hearted exchange: I am sure the guy still believes this stuff but he was a good sport about peoples' reactions).


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 3, 2021)

Bedrockgames said:


> I still remember in my ancient history class we had a student who gave a presentation on how ancient Egypt was created by aliens (and this was before all those ancient aliens shows). The professor explained the evidence against the idea (basically saying it wasn't true) but I have to say, it was very engaging and entertaining even if I found it a wildly inaccurate explanation. Also the student took the instructor's dismantling of his presentation pretty well (overall it was a very friendly and light hearted exchange: I am sure the guy still believes this stuff but he was a good sport about peoples' reactions).




 The idea has been around since the late 60's/70's. 

Pseudohistorical book called Chariots of the Gods.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 3, 2021)

Zardnaar said:


> The idea has been around since the late 60's/70's.
> 
> Pseudohistorical book called Chariots of the Gods.




He mentioned that in the presentation (I remember him referring to the Chariots of the Gods). My point was just it wasn't as frequently encountered back then (and people didn't instantly conjure up a picture of the 'aliens' guy when it did come up).


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 3, 2021)

Bedrockgames said:


> He mentioned that in the presentation (I remember him referring to the Chariots of the Gods). My point was just it wasn't as frequently encountered back then (and people didn't instantly conjure up a picture of the 'aliens' guy when it did come up).



"Chariots of the Gods" was a massive thing, back in the late '60s/early '70s. You couldn't turn around without seeing another book that was riffing from it, or a TV show that was talking about it. This went on for several years and the sequel, "Gods From outer Space" in the late '70s started it all up again. I think that I was all of 7 when I first read "Chariots" and, even then, my eyes were rolling


----------



## Aeson (Dec 3, 2021)

It's odd what people will believe. Aliens, flat earth, Finland is fake, Australia doesn't exist, JFK Jr. is alive and what comes with that.


----------



## GreyLord (Dec 3, 2021)

Aeson said:


> It's odd what people will believe. Aliens, flat earth, Finland is fake, Australia doesn't exist, JFK Jr. is alive and what comes with that.



Do we ever find people in Australia who claim Australia doesn't exist.  That could be fun the watch/hear.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 3, 2021)

GreyLord said:


> Do we ever find people in Australia who claim Australia doesn't exist.  That could be fun the watch/hear.



Well, everyone knows that Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, so how can you believe them?


----------



## dragoner (Dec 3, 2021)

Wait until you hear about the Great Russian Horde, and the Crimean Jesus, and it all happened in the 13th century. 








						New chronology (Fomenko) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 4, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> Well, everyone knows that Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, so how can you believe them?




 Australia doesn't exist. There is a landmass we refer to as the "Great Western Dust bowl" to the west of us.


----------



## Aeson (Dec 4, 2021)

A landmass where everything wants to kill you. And drop bears.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 4, 2021)

Aeson said:


> A landmass where everything wants to kill you. And drop bears.




 Correct. The wildlife is bad as well.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 4, 2021)

Not to mention explosive trees.


----------

