Rome fell in 1985 when the mayors of Rome and Carthage signed a peace treaty formally ending the Third Punic War, the unresolved state of which meant the participants still existed until it ended.
@@Kbelikar The fun part is that is not a joke. Classic Rome end in 3'th century, when Constantine the Great moved capital, leading to massive shifts in power, what lead to lost of old capital in 5'th century. But in reality many of so called "barbarians" were actually Roman citizens and senate of Rome operated until 7'th century. So called Byzantium what was Rome only by name, as its culture was based on Greek, not Latin. Fall in 15'th century. But Holly Roman Empire (formed from Franks who were Roman province and usurp title during succession crisis in East Rome during 8'th century) fall only in 19'th century and even that only by evolving in German Empire. With title of Kaiser being used until WW1. Spiritually European Union continue many aspects of law, organization and tradition of the Rome. EU was founded by Rome Statute... yeh, it is not subtle.
Let's be honest, the 476 date for the fall of the Rome makes the empire go out with a whimper, but the 1453 end date makes it go out with a bang. Instead of the last emperor being this literal child who's simply deposed in an unceremonious fashion, the last emperor goes down fighting WITH his realm when it's on it's last legs.
People often forget that the Romans believed they fell multiple times, hence why someone like Camillus was called the second founder of Rome, Marius the Third and Augustus the forth, viewing them as founders of new Rome's.
Well... not fallen to be exact. Furius was given the title of 2nd Founder as he drove out the Gauls and helped rebuild the damaged city. For the people at the time, it didn't fall, but was reinvigorated, and the 2nd founder was seen as an honor, such as a title of "Father of a country".
Fall of The Western Roman Empire (also known as *THE* Roman Empire) happens precisely on the year 330 A.D, when Constantine makes the proclamation of a "New Rome" on the soil of Byzantium; thus christening the birth of The Byzantine Empire. Anything else is head-canon & mental gymnastics.
*In my country, Belgium, we have mainly 2 different dates:* 1. 04/09/476: Fall of the Western Roman Empire (Odoacer dethrones Romulus Augustulus and gave himself the title Rex/Dux) 2. 29/05/1453: Fall of the Eastern Roman Empire (Ottoman Empire captures Constantinople after a siege of 53 days) The first date is more special to us because in my country, we mark it as the end of the Classical Antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages. The second date can be marked as the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Early Modern Period but that date is more commonly given to the discovery of the Americas by Colombus on 12/10/1492. It's also important to mention that these 2 dates give us events that changed the whole continent of Europe by dividing the parts of the Roman Empire into pieces.
Ideals will stand the test of time. As long as Rome is remembered, as long as countries use its model of governance(the republic model), and as long as the name Caesar is revered then Rome will never die.
In my opinion the Roman empire began with Cesar crossing the Rubicon and ended in 1461 with the fall of the last byzantine possessions in the Peloponnes (yes, constantinople fell in 1453, but the byzantines still had most of the Peloponnes, where, by that time, the myjority of remaining eastern Roman territory was).
@@GeldtheGelded A name given by foreigners in a foreign time. It's kind of funny to me how people like to use such names as way of proof that a such entities were not Roman or the Roman Empire, but the people who invented the names just wanted ways to differentiate between which Roman state. Did you know that there was no 'Latin Empire', as everyone had referred to it still as the Empire of the Romans? To just use names as a means to discredit a state is in my eyes a bit outlandish.
Fall of The Western Roman Empire (also known as *THE* Roman Empire) happens precisely on the year 330 A.D, when Constantine makes the proclamation of a "New Rome" on the soil of Byzantium; thus christening the birth of The Byzantine Empire. Anything else is head-canon & mental gymnastics.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no I’m sure it’ll blow your mind when you find out that Rome wasn’t even the Capital anymore in 330AD. The Capital was moved to Mediolanum (Milan) around 50 years prior
*Fun fact:* There's an amazing comic about the Fall of the Western Empire called "Amiculus", in which the byzantines, after re-conquering Rome during the reign of Justinian, try to find out the fate of Romulus Augustulus while the last days of the boy as emperor are shown through flashbacks. Loved the way Orestes was portrayed here as a maniac obsessed with maintaining the Empire no matter what
If we call Moscow the third Rome it would be fair to say that 1917 with the overthrow of the Tsar being the true end, the title of Tsar being dirived from Augustus. After watching the vid there's a line from Gladiator that comes to mind 'Rome is an idea' the entity of Rome not being a physical thing but a thought.
Fantastic video Spectrum. I love how you mentioned that the “Barbarian” Generals were de facto Roman Emperors in their own right. Pretty much nobody cared when Romulus was deposed as he was a complete figurehead that was the son of a usurper that was also not recognized by the Eastern Roman Empire. I would like to add on that these “Barbarians” were highly Romanized at this point and preserved Roman law, institutions, architecture, and culture. (1) These barbarians had taken rein of the Roman state long before Romulus on multiple occasions, with a huge number of Western Roman Emperors being mere puppets controlled by powerful Germanic generals. It is also to be noted that the image of “decadent” Romans Christians adding way too many mercenaries because of said decadence only to be overwhelmed by hordes of barbarians is a bit of a fantasy. As Tim O’Neill states: “This summarises the main elements of Gibbon’s argument on this point - Christianity taught pacifism or at least passivity, the manly “active virtues” of the old Empire were suppressed, money was wasted on clergy and churches and the former Roman “military spirit” declined. Of course, historiography has advanced greatly since the 1770s and, unsurprisingly, there have been a great many scholarly studies of the causes of the fall of the Western Roman Empire since then. They have generally rejected Gibbon on these points. Oxford’s Peter Heather has summarised the flaws in Gibbon’s argument in his recent work on the fall of the Empire (see Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians, 2005, p.120 ff). He notes: “Christian institutions did, as Gibbon asserts, acquire large financial endowments. On the other hand, the non-Christian religious institutions that they replaced had also been wealthy, and their wealth was being progressively confiscated at the same time as Christianity waxed strong. It is unclear whether endowing Christianity involved an overall transfer of assets from secular to religious coffers. Likewise some manpower was certainly lost to the cloister, this was no more than a few thousand individuals at most, hardly a significant figure in a world that was maintaining, even increasing, population levels. Similarly, the number of upper-class individuals who renounced their wealth and lifestyles for a life of Christian devotion pales into insignificance beside the 6,000 or so who by AD 400 were actively participating in the state as top bureaucrats.” (Heather, p. 123) So the idea that the church was some vast drain on Imperial coffers to the detriment of the Army or that top talent became “idle mouths” in the cloister rather than generals does not really stack up. It also fails a key rule of thumb that can be applied to any claim about the fall of the Roman Empire. This is because it was the Western Roman Empire that collapsed - the Eastern Empire not only survived for another 1000 years, but actually expanded not long after the fall of the West and went through several periods of economic boom before its long decline and final fall, centuries later. So any claim about a cause of the fall of the Western Empire has to pass the “East/West Test”: is the claim based on an element found only or more substantially in the Western Empire and not in the Eastern one? If not, the claim fails. In this case, the Eastern Empire was every bit as Christian as the West, if not more so. Just as much money went from the emperors and wealthy patrons to the Church in the East as in the West, if not more. The monastic ideal began in the East and was even more popular there, with even more people choosing to reject the world and live an ascetic existence. Yet it was the West that collapsed.” (2) On the topic of these “Barbarian mercenaries” and the “decadence” of the Late Roman Army: “Harris’ references to “true soldiers” and “[farming] it out to mercenaries” indicate he has bought the common misconception that the Late Roman Army was an inferior fighting force compared to the “real” Romans of the Empire’s heyday, and was corrupted and “barbarised” by foreign soldiers who fought for the pay alone. This is a nineteenth century idea based on the erroneous image of a morally decadent Empire and its outdated and second-rate army being overwhelmed militarily by hordes of barbarian invaders. More modern analysis, however, shows the barbarian armies were generally small, the Western Romans won almost all military engagements with them right up to the end of the Empire and that the army remained a formidable, flexible, well-equipped and effective fighting force. The collapse of the Western Empire was primarily a political and economic affair, with the barbarians more one of its symptoms than its cause and the army only dwindling in its very final decades because of collapsing finances and spiraling political disintegration. And, once again, Harris’ claims fail the “East/West Test” because the army of the Eastern Empire was much the same in structure, organisation, equipment and tactics as that of the West, yet it saw no collapse. The fall of the Roman Empire was not primarily a military affair. Harris’ “mercenaries” reference seems to be to the use of foederati - allied non-Roman warriors who fought for Rome alongside or instead of Roman troops. This had been a practice of the Romans since the days of the Republic and had been part of the Imperial “divide and conquer” strategy applied to frontier tribes, with the Romans paying and equipping friendly tribes to fight or guard the border region against other, unfriendly peoples. Paying a foederatus was also an excellent way of obtaining fresh troops quickly, as convincing a barbarian warlord to march under Roman banners brought highly effective and often battle-hardened troops under Roman command almost immediately - far more useful than the time, expense and risk involved in raising, training and then fielding green recruits. The idea that these “mercenaries” were somehow less effective than Roman troops is undermined by the simple fact that the whole reason the Romans used them is that they were formidable units. They were recruited from warlike peoples - Germanic tribes, Isaurians, Arabs, Alans, Sarmatians and Huns - precisely because these warriors made excellent soldiers. Hugh Elton’s analysis also shows that far from proving less loyal to the Empire than Harris’ “true soldiers”, barbarian troops proved rather less likely to rebel or support a usurper than regular units - Germanic troopers in particular took oaths of loyalty very seriously (see Elton, Warfare in Roman Europe, AD 350-425 , Oxford, 1996, especially pp. 272-8). And, yet again, Harris’ claim here fails the “East/West Test”, given that the Eastern Empire made extensive use of foederati and drew on non-Roman sources of regular recruits both in the period the collapse of the West and the centuries that followed. Hunnic, Arabic, Alanic and, later, Bulgarian and Turkic troops all fought for the Eastern emperors and, for its final four centuries, the elite palace guard was made up of the Varangians - Swedish and Russian Vikings and, later, Anglo-Saxon “mercenaries”. It would be interesting to see Sam Harris tell a Varangian that he was not a “true soldier”. (2) Indeed, it was a political and economic affair, with the West struggling to survive due to the loss of one of one of its richest provinces, North Africa, along with spiraling political disintegration and the provinces being unable to sustain themselves. With this lack of funds, independent warlords sprang up as Roman centralization in the west dwindled. Oh, and for any mention of the “Dark Ages” dogma and the “decline” into the Middle Ages”, here: docs.google.com/document/d/1E6EI7f7VKoVr6u6keooAVrmL4yXFjTKry-LF0ec9quU/edit
@@NoahWeaverRacingPart 2: (A continuation of my comment and a TL;DR for the so-called Dark Ages) Medieval Europe, contrary to popular belief, loved ancient learning and was actually extremely prosperous in terms of technological advancement and social development, making Europe and the Medieval Roman Empire richer than their earlier Roman predecessors. Huge advancements in various fields such as agriculture (With these advancements being things such as the invention of the horse plow, greatly increasing the efficiency of plowing) led to flourishing economic centers as trade routes boomed. This can be seen through the analysis of skeletons, which show that Medieval folks were on average better-fed and taller. (3) As Tim O'Neill states: "What is remarkable is which books the translators concentrated on. There was no shortage of Orthodox Greek theological works or even ancient Greek and Roman plays and poems available in Sicily and Spain, but these were generally ignored. The eager scholars from the north concentrated overwhelmingly on works on mathematics, astronomy, physics, logic and philosophy as well as medicine, optics and natural history. They were not interested in plays and poems (leaving them to be "rediscovered" later by the humanist scholars of the Renaissance) - these Medieval scholars were interested in the fruits of reason: science, logic and philosophy.") (4) As the two historians L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson note in the erudite book, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature 4th Edition, “There was in general no attempt to alter the school curriculum by banishing the classical authors.” (pg 50) (5) (Amazon.com: Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature: 9780199686339: Reynolds, L. D., Wilson, N. G.: Books) Indeed, for Medieval scholars such as the brilliant Alcuin of York quoted Ovid, Livy, Pliny, Aristotle, Cicero, and more Classical authors as they did their best to preserve the knowledge lost during the decentralization and gradual collapse of the Western Roman Empires, with help from Nestorian Syriac Christian scholars from the Eastern Roman Empire. Christian scholars who had preserved and actively expanded upon and commented on these works for centuries and centuries more after. (6) Sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoric_the_Great (1) historyforatheists.com/2018/08/sam-harris-horrible-histories/ (2) docs.google.com/document/d/1E6EI7f7VKoVr6u6keooAVrmL4yXFjTKry-LF0ec9quU/edit# (3) www.quora.com/Why-did-science-make-little-real-progress-in-Europe-in-the-Middle-Ages?no_redirect=1 (4) Reynolds, L. D., & Wilson, N. G. (2013). Scribes and scholars: A guide to the transmission of Greek and Latin literature. Oxford University Press. (5) historyforatheists.com/2020/03/the-great-myths-8-the-loss-of-ancient-learning/ (6)
@@NoahWeaverRacing Part 3: As the two historians L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson note in the erudite book, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature 4th Edition, “There was in general no attempt to alter the school curriculum by banishing the classical authors.” (pg 50) (5) (Amazon.com: Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature: 9780199686339: Reynolds, L. D., Wilson, N. G.: Books) Indeed, for Medieval scholars such as the brilliant Alcuin of York quoted Ovid, Livy, Pliny, Aristotle, Cicero, and more Classical authors as they did their best to preserve the knowledge lost during the decentralization and gradual collapse of the Western Roman Empires, with help from Nestorian Syriac Christian scholars from the Eastern Roman Empire. Christian scholars who had preserved and actively expanded upon and commented on these works for centuries and centuries more after. (6) Sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoric_the_Great (1) historyforatheists.com/2018/08/sam-harris-horrible-histories/ (2) docs.google.com/document/d/1E6EI7f7VKoVr6u6keooAVrmL4yXFjTKry-LF0ec9quU/edit# (3) www.quora.com/Why-did-science-make-little-real-progress-in-Europe-in-the-Middle-Ages?no_redirect=1 (4) Reynolds, L. D., & Wilson, N. G. (2013). Scribes and scholars: A guide to the transmission of Greek and Latin literature. Oxford University Press. (5) historyforatheists.com/2020/03/the-great-myths-8-the-loss-of-ancient-learning/ (6)
5:40 Speaking of the Fall of Constantinople, it is said that Constantine XI was rescued and elevated by an angel while fighting against the Ottomans, ascending to Heaven without first dying. Curiously, Romulus suffered a similar fate at the end of his reign, as he was picked up by Mars during a celebration at the Campus Martius. Those identical supernatural events marked the beginning and end of Roman history.
For clarity Russia is not a Third Rome. Ivan the terrible was madman who call himself Roman Emperor, despite never having formal relations with the Byzantium and he also declared himself Cezar of all Rus, despite not controling all of Rus territory. And his country fall immediately after his death, when angry Poles who were Dukes of Rus and technical subjects of Kaiser, come asking WTF? Russia become a Empire only after German Romanov take control over it (who BTW are relatives of British crown, who are also related to Kings of Poland and of course Kaiser). PS: Catherine the Great was a Prussian, what was rogue Province of Poland (and yes, unified Germany). What was one of main reasons why she conspired to kill it. Purely from the spite.
@@DivinizedOne There was no Russia before 16'th century. Kieven Rus fall in 13'th century and whole region was at the time under control of Mongols and it was last place they would move. Russia didn't capture Crimea until 18'th century and whole Roman connection was completely made up by madman, Ivan the Terrible (just before the fall to Poland). Your statement literally make no sense! Whole Roman connection is straight fabrication, including that Russia do not hold actual control over Orthodox church, being only one of many Patriarchs. When Byzantium fall, they still hold for a time the Hellenic peninsula. Even moving to Bulgaria make more sense. Tzars also were Germans and Catherine The Great, a Prussian. But even this connection end with fall of Tzardom.
You're 100% right about the "they spoke Greek not Latin" argument, it's always struck me as particularly odd for that exact reason. You can’t really argue culture either because imperial Roman culture was heavily influenced by Hellenic culture to begin with, and the Eastern Romans perpetuated the system of government, legal system, and many cultural practices from pre-476 Rome. The people themselves, both the upper class and the common people, never really thought of themselves anything but Romans. Hell, they continued doing so long after the Ottoman conquests put an end to the ERE. Modern Greek identity as something distinct from Roman identity is an invention of the Greek nationalist movement that fought for independence from the Ottoman Empire. It took generations for Greek identity to displace Roman identity. Funny enough, the idea of the ERE as some sort of Greek state not truly in continuity with the Roman Empire is very popular with Greek nationalists, who are trying to square their modern Greek identity with a desire to celebrate Eastern Roman accomplishments.
I am of the opinion that Rome is a city. Therefore, the Roman empire "Fell" in 286 AD when Diocletian changed the capital to Mediolanum/Milan. This is the point at which "The Roman empire" simply became "The empire" It became the seminal empire, no longer existing for the purpose of the city of Rome, but for the sake of its institutions and leadership. To me, this is when the old system of the legitimacy of the state coming from SPQR, the senate and people of Rome, to an idea of personal ownership of the state. The one that you would see throughout early medieval times, that the state was the property of the monarch.
I mean that's interesting, but when did "The Empire" fall then. I have a different route but I come to a similar conclusion that the Roman Respublica (the Commonwealth of the Romans), separately understood from direct continuous administration, remained until the modern period when it became strained, and fell after WW1, when no-one claimed to lead this Respublica (as an Emperor).
@@Epicrandomness1111 The Ottomans stopped claiming the title of the emperor of the Romans in the 18th century, I don't think that's an appropriate continuation. I'm of the opinion that the empire fell in 1492 when the continuous line of institutions was permanently destroyed.
If we brought Caeser or Augustus forward in time, what would they think constituted the end of their empire? I think they'd probably consider it over with the death of Nero, as it was no longer ruled by their family, but up for grabs from any random general, much like Alexander's empire.
@@kavky the emperorship did not yet exist but the republic was most certainly a empire, they even engaged heavily in efforts of colonialism and imperialism this also coincides Caesars very overt manoeuvres to have himself become a king or at least pseudo-king
Augustus himself aimed to have the empire split into a diarchy (east/west) before the gens julias male line perished and he had to rely on his sole heir in the gens claudia leaving his bloodline behind. The only dates i could see either considering the end of their empire is either the end of the principate, 1453 or the outlawing of paganism (heraclius potentially also makes sense but since both were hellenophiles i doubt it)
If we brought a roman from the Kingom era to Augustus time he would not even recognize Ocatavian as roman (as he was a descendant of other italic peoples).
Good video, but the 610 segment is riddled with factual errors. 1) Heraclius did not change the language of administration to Greek. We have no primary sources stating or implying this. We also don't have administrative documents from Heraclius' time to suggest this. Also, it's just based on a wrong premise. The administration in the Eastern Empire was always bilingual. Justinian for example, despite being a native Latin speaker had the first volume of his lawcode written in Latin, but the rest was written in Greek. The coins from the time also continue to use Latin long after Heraclius, and court ceremonies still use Latin in the 10th Century. This is a Wikipedia fact. It's stated on Heraclius' Wiki page, with a citation. I've tracked down the original book Wiki cites, and discovered that the source actually doesn't say what Wiki even says. So whoever made that edit on Wikipedia is lying. 2) While Basileus became the primary title, Augustus (in Greek 'Sebastos') was still used, and continued being used in some way until the end of the empire. Caesar was also still used until the end of the empire, as well as Imperator (in Greek 'Autokrator) until the end of the empire. Basileus also did not take on the Hellenistic meaning of King, and continued having the meaning Greeks gave it in Roman Greece (an informal way to refer to the Roman Emperor). 3) Your map is misleading. Egypt and Tripolitania had not yet fallen when Heraclius died. The Arabs did not take Alexandria until several months after Heraclius died.
It's also important to remember that, for Eastern Romans, 'republic' and 'monarchy' weren't opposed, but were instead complementary. The adoption of Basileus as a title may indeed have the meaning of King, but it doesn't mean the 'Basileus of the Romans' *was* a King. They weren't. The Roman Empire ~kind of~ maintained its republican institutions and façade until 1453. The Empire never worked, in any way, like the monarchies of the Latins; the administration was a lot more closer to a military republic than anything else.
@@zelkovas To be clear, during the Byzantine period, they had a specific word to refer to 'King', which was Rēgas. Clearly a loanword from the Latin 'Rex'. Therefore in Medieval Greek the closest translation of Basileus would be Emperor, since that was a title that was seen as being above Rēgas, which they used for foreign Kings.
What about the Maniots that were never conquered by the Ottomans, that helped the Greeks gain their independence, and merged with the modern nation of Greece? Imo the Maniots are the connection between the East Roman Empire and Greece, and thanks to them Rome never died but lived on and Greece is Rome.
The rot of our current civilization is this stubborn idea that somehow reality itself is subjective. It is not; reality will wreck you if you think otherwise, and we are all about to pay for the shortsighted stupidity of a great number of people who think in the "my truth" mindset. What a nice time for Spectrum to speak to this. Appreciated.
The reign of Heraclius makes for a very compelling end to the Roman Empire: - The Emperor stops using the style Augustus and changes to the greek for King. - The romans lose control of much of the East (egypt, palestine, syria) - The Persians are gone from being the primary rivals of the Empire, replaced by the Caliphate - The Emperor puclishes its decrees in Greek
The Emperor was the essentially the Pope before such a position existed. He was the head priest of the Roman Religion just as the Pope is of the Catholics now. He had the title of Pontifex Maximus(Greatest Priest) and the Popes also use that same title.
Both the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire were pluralistic, multiethnic, ecumenical, heavily-bureaucratized imperial states surrounding the Mediterranean, presiding over the Rhomaioi from the traditional Roman seat of power at Constantinople, and both were ruled by hereditary monarchs that called themselves the Caesar of Rome. The only reason why the post-1453 Roman state isn't considered Rome is because of bad Eurocentric historiography.
@@wwpl8371 Founded as a separate state and primarily identified as a separate state. Nothing you say gets around that, that’s why academically they’re not the Roman Empire
I would say that the fall of Rome is a multiple part tale, you have the fall of Roman religion when they adopted Christianity, the fall of Roman culture where their ideals and traditions were slowly eroded, the fall of the Roman state, the fall of Rome itself, when Rome was no longer the center of the empire nor its capital. Ultimately I feel that the end of Rome came with when people stopped referring to a state and its people as being Roman
If we look at it from a institutional perspective with the “Roman” Emperors being the key to what makes the Roman Empire a continuing entity, then it is my opinion that Rome ended in 1453. But from another perspective the west never really “fell.” Odoacer May have been a King of “Italy” but the Roman senate still largely functioned just as it had before the overthrow. Even when the Ostrogoths moved in to overthrow him, you could say the people there were largely “Roman.” And if they ruled as a subservient of the Roman Emperor then Justinians reconquest of the west was just “reuniting” the empire. So even though Rome fell out of there grasp the empire was already reunited. Call it what you want but this is how I justify a solid end date lol
In this case, I do think that a subjective truth could be valide, since the concept of state is a human creation. Asking when did the Roman Empire ended is like asking when did certain country began existing. Using my country, Spain, as an example, if you consider that Spain began existing in 1469, with the marriage of the king and queen that will eventually call themselves Catholic Kings of Spain, ruling over the land that is today Spain, and speaking a language that is basically Spanish, then your concept of state is a defined nation(s) under a single government. If that's your idea of state, then for you the Roman Empire fell in 476. If you, on the other hand, consider that Spain began existing in 711, with the creation of the Kingdom of Asturias, a state that speaked latin, had a different culture than the Spanish, and didn't even had a 1/5 of the current Spanish territory, but that will eventually conquer the Muslim Iberian territory, unify the Iberian kingdoms, changing it name multiple times and whose royal dinasty and institution will evolve onto the current Spanish Royal House and institution, then for you a state is a group of institutions that are able to evolve over time Then, for you, the Roman Empire ended with the fall of Constantinople and the definitive end of any state that could claim itself as a successor of the Roman Empire (I don't think I have to explain why Russia, Turkey or the HRE don't count as Roman successor) Other conception of state could lead to other dates or other successor candidates for Rome. If you consider a government-in-exile as a valid continuation of a state, then the fall of the despotate of Epirus could count as the fall of the last Roman Empire. If you consider an Empire the property of a king, then you'll have to search for a legitimate successor for the Roman Emperor (which is another rabbit hole entirely) If you consider a state just the embodiment of a nation, then the European Colonial Empires or even the European Union could be consider a continuation of the Roman State, with it language, laws and culture. As I said, the concept of "state" is a subjective human creation, when did it fall depend of your definition of state. The 2 main answers (476 and 1453) are just the result of applying the 2 main definition to this specific scenario.
This video was great in showing that there isnt really one fall of rome. But i were to pick, I'd still say 1453 The Eastern Roman Empire was the last state who had Roman institutions and called themselves the Roman Empire
A better question to ask is: why does it matter so much to us the Fall of Rome? Why do we get mad when someone refers to the Eastern Roman Empire as the Byzantine Empire instead of Roman? How would it matter if if a certain state was heir to Rome? Why did people so desperately want to start a third Rome? For what exactly? Thing is the political institution of the Roman Republic and Empire lasted such a long time as to evolve and change in massive ways institutionally and culturally compared to it's classic past, and being roman so too evolved from being a regional term denoting living in the roman empire, to post Renaissance being an heir and exemplary of the mightiness of antiquity! I'm pretty sure we've moved past the point of seriously arguing about it as the Tzar did during WW1. The meaning of Rome, goes past semantics and delves more deeply into the culture of "western civilisation!!" which most of the world abides by or is influenced by in some way.
Ancient Rome as an institution ended in 395 Western Rome died in 476 Eastern Rome died in 1453 Trebizond, the final direct remnant of Rome fell in 1461.
If we understand Rome as everything that continues the legacy of what started in Italy, then Rome is not really dead at all. We are still heavily influenced by their legacy.
My view on this line of thought is that there are two dates for when Western and Eastern Rome both fell as Roma Lazarus (Western Rome) and Roma Continued (Eastern Rome). Because the two dates in my eyes that Western and Eastern Rome ended are 1453 (Eastern Rome) and 1648 (Western Rome).
I liked your discourse on truth a lot, things important to historiography like epistemology are so rarely discussed, yet have such huge implications for how we treat history!
You could very well say that it is continuing today, not for the fact that there are latin language countries, but for the papacy, as it is the last continuing institution of the Roman state, even having its seat in Rome, Italy. Going back, even Julius Caesar held the title of Pontifex Maximus. While I am partial to the 1453 date, it is a point you can fairly make.
I’ve always been a fan of your videos for the humor and personality that you bring into your topics, and I was kinda trepidatious about watching this video as I felt it would be a bit dry/bland. However, instead of that, I actually really appreciated the seriousness you put into this topic, starting off with the introduction of “what is truth?” The philosophic and academic tone I think were quite fitting, and I don’t think it would have been as good if you tackled it from your normal point of view. I still hope you make more humorous content like rankings, but seeing more thoughtful and intrepid videos like this wouldn’t be bad either. If you told me this is the most effort you’ve ever put into making a video, and least from a serious pov and not like recording or editing,I’d believe you. You should be proud. I look forward to what you bring in the future.
I think that: - Properly and symbolically, it fell in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople and death of the last emperor. - Politically, it fell in 1460 with the Ottoman conquest of the Despotate of Morea (which was the last piece of legal Roman land still unoccupied by 1453) - In its entirety, it fell in 1479 with the fall of the Principality of Theodoro, which had been part of the 'illegal' Roman successor state of the empire of Trebizond.
I hate the Term “My Truth” as well. Had to reaffirm several times the difference between Subjective Perspective and Objective Truth. You can believe in the truth or not, it would still be True.
im surprised you didnt cover constantine's conversion or theodosius's persecutions as possible dates for the end of the empire. there is an argument that rome lost its true cultural identity when it became christian (that i vehemently disagree with) and its an interesting topic to talk about.
What I like to think is that Rome transitioned into many new forms through it's history, before slowly fading during the Early-Late middle ages (elements like it's culture, political structure ((especially the senate)), language, military and empire all falling into history during this time period). As so putting any single date for the fall of the Roman Empire in my opinion isn't possible. Rome was chipped away piece by piece, until the culture that came from bricks and turned it into marble faded away...
i see the end of the roman empire as the year 1460, the fall of constantinople being the end of the roman empire is like saying the fall of rome was the end, the year 1460 however was the year morea was lost to the ottoman empire, and the roman empire died
Sometimes roman has well tho. I will die on the hill that if you get crowned i Rome by the guy that currently rule Rome, you have a right to call yourself roman.
I would say 1453. Because it is the end of everything. The state, the culture and language are no longer prominent. The moment that date rolls by, I would say there is nothing identifiable Roman left. There is a legacy for sure, we are not our fathers or mothers, neither are our children us. The Eastern Roman empire was arguably the same empire, but not exactly the same as what came before, but after 1453 there is nothing really left that is identifiable Roman. Even the Greeks change culture under Ottoman run, similar to the Italians changing, making them pretty unrecognisable without the timeline of a continuous state. You could argue any dates beforehand but I would say that it is delusional to claim anything after 1453 really, maybe with the fall of the last Byzantine state, but after that there is nothing I would argue which is really Roman by that point.
It would be nice to a video on Justinian, and maybe Theodosius and Constantine. Especially as something of a counter weight to the rather biased paganaboo videos on these Emperors from Maiorianus.
It depends how you see the question, if you see the kingdom, republic and the empire as different then the fall of the empire is after Augustus became emperor. It has to be after then as that’s when the empire technically started.
Everybody knows Rome never ended because of the plot to snatch Aurelian from the time of his death and bring him to the modern day. We’ll restore the world yet!
My perspective is that this question shines light on the way that human institutions evolve over time. The empire that fell in 1453 was different from the empire the Crusaders sacked in 1204, which was not the empire of Justinian, which was not the empire of Constantine, which wasn't the empire of Augustus, which wasn't the late republic, which wasn't the early republic, which wasn't the original kingdom. We see massive changes, in government, religion, culture, language, institutions, and geography over that time, to the point where if you compare 1453 CE to 753 BCE, you'd scarcely see the similarities. It'd be like comparing a a human to an ancestor from 400 million years ago (essentially a fish) without taking note of the many, many small steps along the path that links the two of them together. The lesson, to me, is that we are wired to see everything as a discrete entity, but reality is often not that simple. You'll find in history, as in biology and other sciences, as many examples of continuity as sharp, convenient cut-offs. Ultimately, there is no single easy answer to 'when Rome fell', and the best answer may depend on what aspects you are interested in or find important. I personally like 1453 because I feel like there's a bias in how people understand history that excludes that part of the world, but its far from the only answer.
Countries that theoretically have the claim to Rome to this day (although none, I mean none, acknowledge this in any way) Spain - the legal successor to the Roman throne is technically Ferdinand of Aragon (I myself believe this is only honorary), and his descendants still have the claim to this day. Italy - their hold on Rome does give them some legitimacy. USA - their constitution is heavily inspired of the Roman Republic, therefore can be seen as a successor that way. Turkey - their hold on Constantinople does give them some legitimacy, plus they are a direct successor state of the Ottomans. Greece - they speak the same Greek that the early Empire used. Vatican City - somewhat self-explanatory San Marino - they are a remnant of the Empire going as back as when the Empire existed, making them technically a successor state to Rome. Russia - they have a claim to be the third Rome. Austria - they descended from the Habsburgs, the Holy Roman Emperors in addition to having the legal claim as Charles V/I have both the legal ERE claim and being the HRE. there are more but they are more crackpot than this so I won't list why they have this claim.
I believe that roman history really took a turn after the arab invasions. I don't have an objective basis for this belief but i always thought that before the rise of Islam, even though the Byzantines had lost their ability to project power and culture as they could during and before Justinian's reign, they had no equal polities that could challenge them mano o mano. In my opinion, during the second half of Heraclius' reign, a strugling empire turned into a nation in the constant threat of not existing. If we go by feelings alone, I think the Roman Empire fell when the Muslims came. I think this is also a good starting point to set for the medieval age too.
I personally love how you explained truth at the start and make it clear that truth doesn't actually exist, it is but a ploy made by your mind to justify your actions.
13:20 multiple Emperors happened long before Antonius Pius. Tiberius was given all the important powers of the Emperor(Maius Imperium, and Tribunician power) and was hailed Imperator before Augustus was dead.
Rome fell in 752 when the city of Rome officially left the empire for good with the new pope Stephen II who didn't recognize Constantinople's authority and laid the foundation for the papal states.
If we define Rome by battle prowess and the language, then Sardinia is the Roman Empire: Sardinian language is the closest to Latin, and the Sardinian brigade of the Italian Army is called "Dimonios" (demons) because that's what the Austro-Hungarians that first faced it called them. But you'd first better ask them, because I don't want to insult them... They're scary.
Honestly, the western roman empire should end in 476. And the easter one in 1204. Why? What is an empire? Its not just a title, it means, generally, that there is at least a large domain over many lands. Now, when western rome is reduced to italy, and eastern rome is reduced to scraps of greece and turkey...what empire is there? Thats a kingdom at best imo.
68: The last Julio-Claudian emperor, Nero, is killed. 285: The first formal division of the empire into two distinct halves 330: The seat of power is moved from Rome to New Rome, Constantinople 380: Theodosius I decrees Christianity as the official state religion of the empire 395: Theodosius I dies as the last emperor to rule over a united empire 475: The last time Rome is ever the capital of any part of the empire 476: Romulus Augustus is deposed by Odoacer, after serving as the last emperor to rule from Italy, with Odoacer forming the Kingdom of Italy under the authority of the senate and emperor in Constantinople 480: Julius Nepos is the last emperor of the last province of the western empire 486: Syagrius rules the last European mainland rump state of the west, posthumously knows as the Kingdom of Soissons, until his death 493: Odoacer is killed and overthrown and his kingdom in Italy is taken by the Ostrogothic Kingdom 565: The last native Latin-speaking emperor, Justinian I, dies 610: Emperor Heraclius makes Greek the official language of the empire 751: The Lombards capture Ravenna, ending Roman rule over Ravenna and Rome 756: The formation of the Pope’s Papal States marks a key split between the Latin west and Greek east 800: Frankish king Charlemagne is crowned by the Pope as “Holy Roman Emperor” 843: The Treaty of Verdun divides the HRE into East, Central and West Francia for the first time. 880: The Treaty of Ribemont divides the Frankish Empire for the last time 962: Otto I is crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope, seeing him as Charlemagne’s successor 1054: The Great Schism officially divides the Christian Church into the Latin Catholic west and the Greek Orthodox east. 1071: The last Italian portion of the Roman Empire, Bari, is lost 1077: The Sultanate of Rûm (Turkish synonym for “Rome”) is established by the Seljuks following their Turkification of Anatolia after the battle of Manzikert. 1204: Latin crusaders sack and take Constantinople, dividing the empire amongst themselves 1261: Constantinople is reclaimed by the empire of Nicaea 1283: The last rump state of the Western Roman Empire, the Kingdom of Gwynedd, falls 1299: The Ottomans emerge from a Turkic beylik 1453: The Ottomans conquer Constantinople, and the last Constantinopolitan Roman emperor dies 1460: The last province of the Eastern Empire, the Despotate of Morea, is conquered by the Ottomans 1461: The Empire of Trebizond is conquered by the Ottomans 1475: The Principality of Theodoro, the rump state of Trebizond, is conquered by the Ottomans 1479: The Despotate of Epirus is conquered by the Ottomans 1494: Nephew of Constantine XI, Andreas Palaiologos’ titular rule over Constantinople ends after selling the rights of the crown to France 1502: Andreas Palaiologos’ titular rule over the Morea ends with his death, with his will decreeing Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain as successors, which is denied 1556: The abdication of Charles V of the HRE divided his realm between Spain and Austria 1648: The Peace of Westphalia ends the Thirty Years’ War 1797: Venice is conquered by Napoleon 1806: The HRE is dissolved 1922: The Ottoman Empire ends cba to do anymore, fug dis shit.
This video is a bit bs. What you should have said to honest is that you can't say when or did the Roman Empire fall because you don't know what's the Roman empire. You have no clear definition for it. This in itself is also bs. We have absolutely zero doubt about what is the Ottoman empire, Habsburg empire, French empire, British Empire, etc. It makes sense to be a bit unsure regarding the Roman empire, since it started in antiquity and lasted for thousands of years, so it naturally did evolve into many completely unrecognizable shapes. I mean, the state of Diocletian was different than the state of Augustus. Constantine's state was different than the one ruled by Diocletian. It gradually evolved from an empire ruled by Romans from Rome, to Latins, to one ruled technically by latinized barbarians. So, let's be honest, what constitutes a state is continuous legacy, organic institutional evolution, organic societal evolution, organic evolving history. The empire ended in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople. That's very much clear. Up to that point, the Roman state had clear and organic evolutionary flow in every aspect. Yes, the Ottomans did build on the legacy of the Roman state, yes, the Holy Roman empire did build on the legacy of the Roman state, yes, Russia is building on that legacy too, as do many other states, but they're just building on the legacy, these states have completely different origins and often pretty much unrelated origins. So, without a doubt, 1453 is the end of the Roman empire, just a fact. Everything else is simply muddying the water and endless philosophical rambling for the sake of it.
An interesting idea is that people groups can maintain their identity even after a change of religion, language and culture, like the Goths of the third century who were Germanic Pagans but in the early 8th century were Catholic Latin speakers whose culture had totally changed but still viewed themselves as Goths. But then you get the other way of viewing it where the people adopt the customs, language and religion of another where they have more in common with the people they've emulated than their old tradition but still think of themselves as their old people group, like with the Illyrian's there would have been a subsect of their society that was practically identical to Romans but still called themselves Illyrian's, an outsider would certainly think as much, where you have a situation in where someone quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, are they not a duck?
Likewise people groups that are not conquered will naturally change over time even if left in the same location, look at the France, France was around 1000 years ago and has direct continuity to now but a modern Frenchman wouldn't be able to understand the language and the customs would be quite alien to them.
Nah, just head-canon on part of desperate Christians trying to maintain some sort of connection to Roman greatness. *ANY OTHER* civilization that utterly abandoned it's political structure, societal hierarchy, religion, language, cultural values, architectural identity, geographical capital & general entire way of life itself would be recognized as utterly different from it's predecessors; it's no coincidence that Byzantine is the one where people are so desperate to make exceptions lmao. The Visi/OstroGoths you mention aren't even recognized as Goth come the turn of the 8th century 💀 they were simply called Spaniards and Italians; what they "called themselves" doesn't matter, just as modern emo dweebs calling themselves "goth" doesn't matter. LARPing as something doesn't actually make you that thing, you'd do best to remember that.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no According to their own legal code they considered themselves to be and called themselves Goths, I just finished reading Peter Heathers book on the Goths that explains this in detail with reference to archaeological and literary evidence, come back to me when your head isn't up your ass. Likewise last I checked England speakers have a majority Latin-based/influenced language and are no longer Germanic Pagans Warriors, cultures and peoples change, if you ever read Archaic Latin it looks more like Runes, again as I mentioned in another comment Romans of the Middle Republican were completely different to Romans of the Early Empire, you go from an incredibly religious society of men who mainly value Honour to an agnostic society that changes religions and beliefs when fashionable that cares more for comfort than Honour, I'd say they certainly abandoned the vast majority of their prior identity, if you wanted to be really anal then by your standards you could say by the Third Century when Rome stopped being the capital that anyone to call themselves Roman are just larping. Again, come back to me when you read a few books and pull your head out of your ass, I evidently know more than you.
@@atticusp6592 "According to their own legal code they considered themselves to be and called themselves Goths" Refer to my previous statement: "The Visi/OstroGoths you mention aren't even recognized as Goth come the turn of the 8th century 💀 they were simply called Spaniards and Italians; what they "called themselves" doesn't matter, just as modern emo dweebs calling themselves "goth" doesn't matter. LARPing as something doesn't actually make you that thing, you'd do best to remember that."
Culturally and spiritually speaking Rome never fell but politically and practically it ended in 1453 pick your choice. However Rome will never fall unless us and our future descendants forget thinking and know about its greatness Vivat imperator!
Rome fell in 1985 when the mayors of Rome and Carthage signed a peace treaty formally ending the Third Punic War, the unresolved state of which meant the participants still existed until it ended.
So East Germany still exists because Molossia is still officially at war with them?
@@seannolan9857 Goes without saying
ok, Im going with this now, thats pretty based.
In the Third Punic War Tunisia must be swearing in arabic against Italians who have no clue what word the Tunisians are saying.😂
@@Kbelikar The fun part is that is not a joke.
Classic Rome end in 3'th century, when Constantine the Great moved capital, leading to massive shifts in power, what lead to lost of old capital in 5'th century. But in reality many of so called "barbarians" were actually Roman citizens and senate of Rome operated until 7'th century. So called Byzantium what was Rome only by name, as its culture was based on Greek, not Latin. Fall in 15'th century. But Holly Roman Empire (formed from Franks who were Roman province and usurp title during succession crisis in East Rome during 8'th century) fall only in 19'th century and even that only by evolving in German Empire. With title of Kaiser being used until WW1. Spiritually European Union continue many aspects of law, organization and tradition of the Rome. EU was founded by Rome Statute... yeh, it is not subtle.
Maybe The Real Rome Was the Friends We Made Along the Way
Based and journey pilled
The hole west is the roman empire in itself :D
Or the people we killed and genocide.
@@starmaker75 And the people still coping to this very day
@@starmaker75 never mix history with modern ethics
Let's be honest, the 476 date for the fall of the Rome makes the empire go out with a whimper, but the 1453 end date makes it go out with a bang.
Instead of the last emperor being this literal child who's simply deposed in an unceremonious fashion, the last emperor goes down fighting WITH his realm when it's on it's last legs.
I feel honored that the abdication of Charles V was mentioned even if in passing. I will die on that hill.
People often forget that the Romans believed they fell multiple times, hence why someone like Camillus was called the second founder of Rome, Marius the Third and Augustus the forth, viewing them as founders of new Rome's.
Heck some people would agrue the Roman fell in 1922 with the Ottoman Empire abolished
Well... not fallen to be exact. Furius was given the title of 2nd Founder as he drove out the Gauls and helped rebuild the damaged city. For the people at the time, it didn't fall, but was reinvigorated, and the 2nd founder was seen as an honor, such as a title of "Father of a country".
@@starmaker75 They were not rome Ottomans were nothing
Fall of The Western Roman Empire (also known as *THE* Roman Empire) happens precisely on the year 330 A.D, when Constantine makes the proclamation of a "New Rome" on the soil of Byzantium; thus christening the birth of The Byzantine Empire. Anything else is head-canon & mental gymnastics.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no there is no such thing as the byzantine empire. The arabs and the Persians always called it simply the roman empire
Uzbekistan is the Roman Empire🇺🇿
Eat a horse
This is the truth.
What the mainstream media doesn’t want you to know
🇺🇿🇺🇿🇺🇿🇺🇿🇺🇿
you won't see this in your mainstream history books
When your empire is so influential people still don’t know if it ever even fell:
One potential date is sometime during the 580s, as that is when the Senate had become defunct.
*In my country, Belgium, we have mainly 2 different dates:*
1. 04/09/476: Fall of the Western Roman Empire (Odoacer dethrones Romulus Augustulus and gave himself the title Rex/Dux)
2. 29/05/1453: Fall of the Eastern Roman Empire (Ottoman Empire captures Constantinople after a siege of 53 days)
The first date is more special to us because in my country, we mark it as the end of the Classical Antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages. The second date can be marked as the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Early Modern Period but that date is more commonly given to the discovery of the Americas by Colombus on 12/10/1492. It's also important to mention that these 2 dates give us events that changed the whole continent of Europe by dividing the parts of the Roman Empire into pieces.
Pretty much the same in Italy.
I remember in the 90s i read (elementary school book) the middle ages ended in 1453, now you find only 1492
If look at that way, the Middle Ages start and end with the fall of the Rome empire
Same here in Romania
My school says that the middle ages are from 500-1500 which is just wrong. WTF
Same here in France
A dream cannot be killed.
Ideals will stand the test of time. As long as Rome is remembered, as long as countries use its model of governance(the republic model), and as long as the name Caesar is revered then Rome will never die.
That introduction was some of the best explanations of "opinions" I've heard in a while.
In my opinion the Roman empire began with Cesar crossing the Rubicon and ended in 1461 with the fall of the last byzantine possessions in the Peloponnes (yes, constantinople fell in 1453, but the byzantines still had most of the Peloponnes, where, by that time, the myjority of remaining eastern Roman territory was).
That's the empire of trebizond
@@GeldtheGelded A name given by foreigners in a foreign time. It's kind of funny to me how people like to use such names as way of proof that a such entities were not Roman or the Roman Empire, but the people who invented the names just wanted ways to differentiate between which Roman state. Did you know that there was no 'Latin Empire', as everyone had referred to it still as the Empire of the Romans? To just use names as a means to discredit a state is in my eyes a bit outlandish.
Fall of The Western Roman Empire (also known as *THE* Roman Empire) happens precisely on the year 330 A.D, when Constantine makes the proclamation of a "New Rome" on the soil of Byzantium; thus christening the birth of The Byzantine Empire. Anything else is head-canon & mental gymnastics.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no I’m sure it’ll blow your mind when you find out that Rome wasn’t even the Capital anymore in 330AD. The Capital was moved to Mediolanum (Milan) around 50 years prior
@@jasonthomasmt So the transition into Byzantium & The Byzantine Empire actually began 50 years before? Thanks for letting me know
*Fun fact:* There's an amazing comic about the Fall of the Western Empire called "Amiculus", in which the byzantines, after re-conquering Rome during the reign of Justinian, try to find out the fate of Romulus Augustulus while the last days of the boy as emperor are shown through flashbacks. Loved the way Orestes was portrayed here as a maniac obsessed with maintaining the Empire no matter what
Aw, I wanna read this now!
If we call Moscow the third Rome it would be fair to say that 1917 with the overthrow of the Tsar being the true end, the title of Tsar being dirived from Augustus.
After watching the vid there's a line from Gladiator that comes to mind 'Rome is an idea' the entity of Rome not being a physical thing but a thought.
In which case, the answer should be 1946, as Bulgaria also had a tsar until then.
Fantastic video Spectrum. I love how you mentioned that the “Barbarian” Generals were de facto Roman Emperors in their own right. Pretty much nobody cared when Romulus was deposed as he was a complete figurehead that was the son of a usurper that was also not recognized by the Eastern Roman Empire. I would like to add on that these “Barbarians” were highly Romanized at this point and preserved Roman law, institutions, architecture, and culture. (1) These barbarians had taken rein of the Roman state long before Romulus on multiple occasions, with a huge number of Western Roman Emperors being mere puppets controlled by powerful Germanic generals. It is also to be noted that the image of “decadent” Romans Christians adding way too many mercenaries because of said decadence only to be overwhelmed by hordes of barbarians is a bit of a fantasy. As Tim O’Neill states:
“This summarises the main elements of Gibbon’s argument on this point - Christianity taught pacifism or at least passivity, the manly “active virtues” of the old Empire were suppressed, money was wasted on clergy and churches and the former Roman “military spirit” declined. Of course, historiography has advanced greatly since the 1770s and, unsurprisingly, there have been a great many scholarly studies of the causes of the fall of the Western Roman Empire since then. They have generally rejected Gibbon on these points. Oxford’s Peter Heather has summarised the flaws in Gibbon’s argument in his recent work on the fall of the Empire (see Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians, 2005, p.120 ff). He notes:
“Christian institutions did, as Gibbon asserts, acquire large financial endowments. On the other hand, the non-Christian religious institutions that they replaced had also been wealthy, and their wealth was being progressively confiscated at the same time as Christianity waxed strong. It is unclear whether endowing Christianity involved an overall transfer of assets from secular to religious coffers. Likewise some manpower was certainly lost to the cloister, this was no more than a few thousand individuals at most, hardly a significant figure in a world that was maintaining, even increasing, population levels. Similarly, the number of upper-class individuals who renounced their wealth and lifestyles for a life of Christian devotion pales into insignificance beside the 6,000 or so who by AD 400 were actively participating in the state as top bureaucrats.”
(Heather, p. 123)
So the idea that the church was some vast drain on Imperial coffers to the detriment of the Army or that top talent became “idle mouths” in the cloister rather than generals does not really stack up. It also fails a key rule of thumb that can be applied to any claim about the fall of the Roman Empire. This is because it was the Western Roman Empire that collapsed - the Eastern Empire not only survived for another 1000 years, but actually expanded not long after the fall of the West and went through several periods of economic boom before its long decline and final fall, centuries later. So any claim about a cause of the fall of the Western Empire has to pass the “East/West Test”: is the claim based on an element found only or more substantially in the Western Empire and not in the Eastern one? If not, the claim fails. In this case, the Eastern Empire was every bit as Christian as the West, if not more so. Just as much money went from the emperors and wealthy patrons to the Church in the East as in the West, if not more. The monastic ideal began in the East and was even more popular there, with even more people choosing to reject the world and live an ascetic existence. Yet it was the West that collapsed.” (2)
On the topic of these “Barbarian mercenaries” and the “decadence” of the Late Roman Army:
“Harris’ references to “true soldiers” and “[farming] it out to mercenaries” indicate he has bought the common misconception that the Late Roman Army was an inferior fighting force compared to the “real” Romans of the Empire’s heyday, and was corrupted and “barbarised” by foreign soldiers who fought for the pay alone. This is a nineteenth century idea based on the erroneous image of a morally decadent Empire and its outdated and second-rate army being overwhelmed militarily by hordes of barbarian invaders. More modern analysis, however, shows the barbarian armies were generally small, the Western Romans won almost all military engagements with them right up to the end of the Empire and that the army remained a formidable, flexible, well-equipped and effective fighting force. The collapse of the Western Empire was primarily a political and economic affair, with the barbarians more one of its symptoms than its cause and the army only dwindling in its very final decades because of collapsing finances and spiraling political disintegration. And, once again, Harris’ claims fail the “East/West Test” because the army of the Eastern Empire was much the same in structure, organisation, equipment and tactics as that of the West, yet it saw no collapse. The fall of the Roman Empire was not primarily a military affair.
Harris’ “mercenaries” reference seems to be to the use of foederati - allied non-Roman warriors who fought for Rome alongside or instead of Roman troops. This had been a practice of the Romans since the days of the Republic and had been part of the Imperial “divide and conquer” strategy applied to frontier tribes, with the Romans paying and equipping friendly tribes to fight or guard the border region against other, unfriendly peoples. Paying a foederatus was also an excellent way of obtaining fresh troops quickly, as convincing a barbarian warlord to march under Roman banners brought highly effective and often battle-hardened troops under Roman command almost immediately - far more useful than the time, expense and risk involved in raising, training and then fielding green recruits.
The idea that these “mercenaries” were somehow less effective than Roman troops is undermined by the simple fact that the whole reason the Romans used them is that they were formidable units. They were recruited from warlike peoples - Germanic tribes, Isaurians, Arabs, Alans, Sarmatians and Huns - precisely because these warriors made excellent soldiers. Hugh Elton’s analysis also shows that far from proving less loyal to the Empire than Harris’ “true soldiers”, barbarian troops proved rather less likely to rebel or support a usurper than regular units - Germanic troopers in particular took oaths of loyalty very seriously (see Elton, Warfare in Roman Europe, AD 350-425 , Oxford, 1996, especially pp. 272-8). And, yet again, Harris’ claim here fails the “East/West Test”, given that the Eastern Empire made extensive use of foederati and drew on non-Roman sources of regular recruits both in the period the collapse of the West and the centuries that followed. Hunnic, Arabic, Alanic and, later, Bulgarian and Turkic troops all fought for the Eastern emperors and, for its final four centuries, the elite palace guard was made up of the Varangians - Swedish and Russian Vikings and, later, Anglo-Saxon “mercenaries”. It would be interesting to see Sam Harris tell a Varangian that he was not a “true soldier”. (2)
Indeed, it was a political and economic affair, with the West struggling to survive due to the loss of one of one of its richest provinces, North Africa, along with spiraling political disintegration and the provinces being unable to sustain themselves. With this lack of funds, independent warlords sprang up as Roman centralization in the west dwindled.
Oh, and for any mention of the “Dark Ages” dogma and the “decline” into the Middle Ages”, here: docs.google.com/document/d/1E6EI7f7VKoVr6u6keooAVrmL4yXFjTKry-LF0ec9quU/edit
This comment needs far more likes, very well done. Thank you for your input to the discussion
incredible comment
@@danieltourinho2057 Ahh, thanks!
@@NoahWeaverRacingPart 2: (A continuation of my comment and a TL;DR for the so-called Dark Ages) Medieval Europe, contrary to popular belief, loved ancient learning and was actually extremely prosperous in terms of technological advancement and social development, making Europe and the Medieval Roman Empire richer than their earlier Roman predecessors. Huge advancements in various fields such as agriculture (With these advancements being things such as the invention of the horse plow, greatly increasing the efficiency of plowing) led to flourishing economic centers as trade routes boomed. This can be seen through the analysis of skeletons, which show that Medieval folks were on average better-fed and taller. (3)
As Tim O'Neill states:
"What is remarkable is which books the translators concentrated on. There was no shortage of Orthodox Greek theological works or even ancient Greek and Roman plays and poems available in Sicily and Spain, but these were generally ignored. The eager scholars from the north concentrated overwhelmingly on works on mathematics, astronomy, physics, logic and philosophy as well as medicine, optics and natural history. They were not interested in plays and poems (leaving them to be "rediscovered" later by the humanist scholars of the Renaissance) - these Medieval scholars were interested in the fruits of reason: science, logic and philosophy.") (4)
As the two historians L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson note in the erudite book, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature 4th Edition,
“There was in general no attempt to alter the school curriculum by banishing the classical authors.” (pg 50) (5)
(Amazon.com: Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature: 9780199686339: Reynolds, L. D., Wilson, N. G.: Books)
Indeed, for Medieval scholars such as the brilliant Alcuin of York quoted Ovid, Livy, Pliny, Aristotle, Cicero, and more Classical authors as they did their best to preserve the knowledge lost during the decentralization and gradual collapse of the Western Roman Empires, with help from Nestorian Syriac Christian scholars from the Eastern Roman Empire. Christian scholars who had preserved and actively expanded upon and commented on these works for centuries and centuries more after. (6)
Sources:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoric_the_Great (1)
historyforatheists.com/2018/08/sam-harris-horrible-histories/ (2)
docs.google.com/document/d/1E6EI7f7VKoVr6u6keooAVrmL4yXFjTKry-LF0ec9quU/edit# (3)
www.quora.com/Why-did-science-make-little-real-progress-in-Europe-in-the-Middle-Ages?no_redirect=1 (4)
Reynolds, L. D., & Wilson, N. G. (2013). Scribes and scholars: A guide to the transmission of Greek and Latin literature. Oxford University Press. (5)
historyforatheists.com/2020/03/the-great-myths-8-the-loss-of-ancient-learning/ (6)
@@NoahWeaverRacing Part 3: As the two historians L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson note in the erudite book, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature 4th Edition,
“There was in general no attempt to alter the school curriculum by banishing the classical authors.” (pg 50) (5)
(Amazon.com: Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature: 9780199686339: Reynolds, L. D., Wilson, N. G.: Books)
Indeed, for Medieval scholars such as the brilliant Alcuin of York quoted Ovid, Livy, Pliny, Aristotle, Cicero, and more Classical authors as they did their best to preserve the knowledge lost during the decentralization and gradual collapse of the Western Roman Empires, with help from Nestorian Syriac Christian scholars from the Eastern Roman Empire. Christian scholars who had preserved and actively expanded upon and commented on these works for centuries and centuries more after. (6)
Sources:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoric_the_Great (1)
historyforatheists.com/2018/08/sam-harris-horrible-histories/ (2)
docs.google.com/document/d/1E6EI7f7VKoVr6u6keooAVrmL4yXFjTKry-LF0ec9quU/edit# (3)
www.quora.com/Why-did-science-make-little-real-progress-in-Europe-in-the-Middle-Ages?no_redirect=1 (4)
Reynolds, L. D., & Wilson, N. G. (2013). Scribes and scholars: A guide to the transmission of Greek and Latin literature. Oxford University Press. (5)
historyforatheists.com/2020/03/the-great-myths-8-the-loss-of-ancient-learning/ (6)
5:40
Speaking of the Fall of Constantinople, it is said that Constantine XI was rescued and elevated by an angel while fighting against the Ottomans, ascending to Heaven without first dying. Curiously, Romulus suffered a similar fate at the end of his reign, as he was picked up by Mars during a celebration at the Campus Martius. Those identical supernatural events marked the beginning and end of Roman history.
I’m not religious, but I want to believe this happend !
For clarity Russia is not a Third Rome. Ivan the terrible was madman who call himself Roman Emperor, despite never having formal relations with the Byzantium and he also declared himself Cezar of all Rus, despite not controling all of Rus territory. And his country fall immediately after his death, when angry Poles who were Dukes of Rus and technical subjects of Kaiser, come asking WTF? Russia become a Empire only after German Romanov take control over it (who BTW are relatives of British crown, who are also related to Kings of Poland and of course Kaiser).
PS: Catherine the Great was a Prussian, what was rogue Province of Poland (and yes, unified Germany). What was one of main reasons why she conspired to kill it. Purely from the spite.
@@TheRezroSome high ranking byzantine citizens fled to Russia after the fall in 1453 tho (not saying they’re a third rome but it kinda makes sense)
@@DivinizedOne There was no Russia before 16'th century. Kieven Rus fall in 13'th century and whole region was at the time under control of Mongols and it was last place they would move.
Russia didn't capture Crimea until 18'th century and whole Roman connection was completely made up by madman, Ivan the Terrible (just before the fall to Poland). Your statement literally make no sense! Whole Roman connection is straight fabrication, including that Russia do not hold actual control over Orthodox church, being only one of many Patriarchs.
When Byzantium fall, they still hold for a time the Hellenic peninsula. Even moving to Bulgaria make more sense. Tzars also were Germans and Catherine The Great, a Prussian. But even this connection end with fall of Tzardom.
@@TheRezroчто ты несёшь
Well, here's the REAL moment Rome fell ...
It fell in my first two turns of Civilization 6.
When they stopped being played by British people speaking with English accents in historical dramas.
Clearly Rome ended when Romulus killed Remus.
Genius.
If you’ve killed a German or a Persian your an honorary Roman
Trump after drone striking Soleimani
Guess I am Roman now
So probably some Israeli guy.
You're 100% right about the "they spoke Greek not Latin" argument, it's always struck me as particularly odd for that exact reason. You can’t really argue culture either because imperial Roman culture was heavily influenced by Hellenic culture to begin with, and the Eastern Romans perpetuated the system of government, legal system, and many cultural practices from pre-476 Rome. The people themselves, both the upper class and the common people, never really thought of themselves anything but Romans. Hell, they continued doing so long after the Ottoman conquests put an end to the ERE. Modern Greek identity as something distinct from Roman identity is an invention of the Greek nationalist movement that fought for independence from the Ottoman Empire. It took generations for Greek identity to displace Roman identity. Funny enough, the idea of the ERE as some sort of Greek state not truly in continuity with the Roman Empire is very popular with Greek nationalists, who are trying to square their modern Greek identity with a desire to celebrate Eastern Roman accomplishments.
I am of the opinion that Rome is a city.
Therefore, the Roman empire "Fell" in 286 AD when Diocletian changed the capital to Mediolanum/Milan.
This is the point at which "The Roman empire" simply became "The empire"
It became the seminal empire, no longer existing for the purpose of the city of Rome, but for the sake of its institutions and leadership. To me, this is when the old system of the legitimacy of the state coming from SPQR, the senate and people of Rome, to an idea of personal ownership of the state. The one that you would see throughout early medieval times, that the state was the property of the monarch.
I mean that's interesting, but when did "The Empire" fall then. I have a different route but I come to a similar conclusion that the Roman Respublica (the Commonwealth of the Romans), separately understood from direct continuous administration, remained until the modern period when it became strained, and fell after WW1, when no-one claimed to lead this Respublica (as an Emperor).
@@Epicrandomness1111 The Ottomans stopped claiming the title of the emperor of the Romans in the 18th century, I don't think that's an appropriate continuation.
I'm of the opinion that the empire fell in 1492 when the continuous line of institutions was permanently destroyed.
The empire lives on within all of us. Roma invicta brothers.
If we brought Caeser or Augustus forward in time, what would they think constituted the end of their empire? I think they'd probably consider it over with the death of Nero, as it was no longer ruled by their family, but up for grabs from any random general, much like Alexander's empire.
There wasn't even an Empire during Caesar's life.
doubtful
@@kavky the emperorship did not yet exist but the republic was most certainly a empire, they even engaged heavily in efforts of colonialism and imperialism this also coincides Caesars very overt manoeuvres to have himself become a king or at least pseudo-king
Augustus himself aimed to have the empire split into a diarchy (east/west) before the gens julias male line perished and he had to rely on his sole heir in the gens claudia leaving his bloodline behind. The only dates i could see either considering the end of their empire is either the end of the principate, 1453 or the outlawing of paganism (heraclius potentially also makes sense but since both were hellenophiles i doubt it)
If we brought a roman from the Kingom era to Augustus time he would not even recognize Ocatavian as roman (as he was a descendant of other italic peoples).
Good video, but the 610 segment is riddled with factual errors.
1) Heraclius did not change the language of administration to Greek. We have no primary sources stating or implying this. We also don't have administrative documents from Heraclius' time to suggest this.
Also, it's just based on a wrong premise. The administration in the Eastern Empire was always bilingual. Justinian for example, despite being a native Latin speaker had the first volume of his lawcode written in Latin, but the rest was written in Greek. The coins from the time also continue to use Latin long after Heraclius, and court ceremonies still use Latin in the 10th Century.
This is a Wikipedia fact. It's stated on Heraclius' Wiki page, with a citation. I've tracked down the original book Wiki cites, and discovered that the source actually doesn't say what Wiki even says. So whoever made that edit on Wikipedia is lying.
2) While Basileus became the primary title, Augustus (in Greek 'Sebastos') was still used, and continued being used in some way until the end of the empire. Caesar was also still used until the end of the empire, as well as Imperator (in Greek 'Autokrator) until the end of the empire. Basileus also did not take on the Hellenistic meaning of King, and continued having the meaning Greeks gave it in Roman Greece (an informal way to refer to the Roman Emperor).
3) Your map is misleading. Egypt and Tripolitania had not yet fallen when Heraclius died. The Arabs did not take Alexandria until several months after Heraclius died.
It's also important to remember that, for Eastern Romans, 'republic' and 'monarchy' weren't opposed, but were instead complementary. The adoption of Basileus as a title may indeed have the meaning of King, but it doesn't mean the 'Basileus of the Romans' *was* a King. They weren't. The Roman Empire ~kind of~ maintained its republican institutions and façade until 1453. The Empire never worked, in any way, like the monarchies of the Latins; the administration was a lot more closer to a military republic than anything else.
@@zelkovas
To be clear, during the Byzantine period, they had a specific word to refer to 'King', which was Rēgas. Clearly a loanword from the Latin 'Rex'.
Therefore in Medieval Greek the closest translation of Basileus would be Emperor, since that was a title that was seen as being above Rēgas, which they used for foreign Kings.
What about the Maniots that were never conquered by the Ottomans, that helped the Greeks gain their independence, and merged with the modern nation of Greece?
Imo the Maniots are the connection between the East Roman Empire and Greece, and thanks to them Rome never died but lived on and Greece is Rome.
There were no one calling the eastern Roman Empire byzantine. They were Romans !
The virgin “Roman empire fell in 476” vs the chad “it fell on 1806 by decree of the holy Roman emperor” enjoyer
The rot of our current civilization is this stubborn idea that somehow reality itself is subjective. It is not; reality will wreck you if you think otherwise, and we are all about to pay for the shortsighted stupidity of a great number of people who think in the "my truth" mindset.
What a nice time for Spectrum to speak to this. Appreciated.
Tuesday, May 29, 1453.
exactly
"For me, it was Tuesday"
august 14, 1461 Siege of Trebizond.
@@ronnieman87 nope emperor was dead already
@@ronnieman87 Trebizond abandoned its claim to being the Roman Empire 200 years prior in agreement with Michael Palaiologos
1453
1453
The reign of Heraclius makes for a very compelling end to the Roman Empire:
- The Emperor stops using the style Augustus and changes to the greek for King.
- The romans lose control of much of the East (egypt, palestine, syria)
- The Persians are gone from being the primary rivals of the Empire, replaced by the Caliphate
- The Emperor puclishes its decrees in Greek
there's a video on the channel Toldinstone called "The War That Ended the Ancient World" precicely about this shift. Quite poetic
That can viewed as a transformation rather than the end.
No, it never fell, you clearly haven’t heard of the secret finish ending 🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮🇫🇮
The Emperor was the essentially the Pope before such a position existed. He was the head priest of the Roman Religion just as the Pope is of the Catholics now. He had the title of Pontifex Maximus(Greatest Priest) and the Popes also use that same title.
Novermber 1st, 1922. I say this solely because it pisses Byzantine fanboys off the most.
breh 💀💀💀💀💀
Both the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire were pluralistic, multiethnic, ecumenical, heavily-bureaucratized imperial states surrounding the Mediterranean, presiding over the Rhomaioi from the traditional Roman seat of power at Constantinople, and both were ruled by hereditary monarchs that called themselves the Caesar of Rome. The only reason why the post-1453 Roman state isn't considered Rome is because of bad Eurocentric historiography.
Russian soldier fighting the Ottomans in the WW1 Caucasus front: "shit bro it's the romans"
@@wwpl8371 Founded as a separate state and primarily identified as a separate state.
Nothing you say gets around that, that’s why academically they’re not the Roman Empire
Absolutely barbaric
I would say that the fall of Rome is a multiple part tale, you have the fall of Roman religion when they adopted Christianity, the fall of Roman culture where their ideals and traditions were slowly eroded, the fall of the Roman state, the fall of Rome itself, when Rome was no longer the center of the empire nor its capital.
Ultimately I feel that the end of Rome came with when people stopped referring to a state and its people as being Roman
1453 was the end. But 1204 was the no turning back point.
Justinian Plague was the no turning back point.
@@WritingGeekNL nah
@@WritingGeekNL nah
@@WritingGeekNL Yes, when it comes to Mediterranean domination. But when it comes to being a prosperous, powerful state, no.
If we look at it from a institutional perspective with the “Roman” Emperors being the key to what makes the Roman Empire a continuing entity, then it is my opinion that Rome ended in 1453.
But from another perspective the west never really “fell.” Odoacer May have been a King of “Italy” but the Roman senate still largely functioned just as it had before the overthrow. Even when the Ostrogoths moved in to overthrow him, you could say the people there were largely “Roman.” And if they ruled as a subservient of the Roman Emperor then Justinians reconquest of the west was just “reuniting” the empire. So even though Rome fell out of there grasp the empire was already reunited. Call it what you want but this is how I justify a solid end date lol
Me: *starts talking about the holy Roman empire*
My therapist: yes I understand. Do you see the holy Roman empire in this room?
In this case, I do think that a subjective truth could be valide, since the concept of state is a human creation.
Asking when did the Roman Empire ended is like asking when did certain country began existing.
Using my country, Spain, as an example, if you consider that Spain began existing in 1469, with the marriage of the king and queen that will eventually call themselves Catholic Kings of Spain, ruling over the land that is today Spain, and speaking a language that is basically Spanish, then your concept of state is a defined nation(s) under a single government.
If that's your idea of state, then for you the Roman Empire fell in 476.
If you, on the other hand, consider that Spain began existing in 711, with the creation of the Kingdom of Asturias, a state that speaked latin, had a different culture than the Spanish, and didn't even had a 1/5 of the current Spanish territory, but that will eventually conquer the Muslim Iberian territory, unify the Iberian kingdoms, changing it name multiple times and whose royal dinasty and institution will evolve onto the current Spanish Royal House and institution, then for you a state is a group of institutions that are able to evolve over time
Then, for you, the Roman Empire ended with the fall of Constantinople and the definitive end of any state that could claim itself as a successor of the Roman Empire (I don't think I have to explain why Russia, Turkey or the HRE don't count as Roman successor)
Other conception of state could lead to other dates or other successor candidates for Rome.
If you consider a government-in-exile as a valid continuation of a state, then the fall of the despotate of Epirus could count as the fall of the last Roman Empire.
If you consider an Empire the property of a king, then you'll have to search for a legitimate successor for the Roman Emperor (which is another rabbit hole entirely)
If you consider a state just the embodiment of a nation, then the European Colonial Empires or even the European Union could be consider a continuation of the Roman State, with it language, laws and culture.
As I said, the concept of "state" is a subjective human creation, when did it fall depend of your definition of state. The 2 main answers (476 and 1453) are just the result of applying the 2 main definition to this specific scenario.
This video was great in showing that there isnt really one fall of rome. But i were to pick, I'd still say 1453
The Eastern Roman Empire was the last state who had Roman institutions and called themselves the Roman Empire
A better question to ask is: why does it matter so much to us the Fall of Rome? Why do we get mad when someone refers to the Eastern Roman Empire as the Byzantine Empire instead of Roman? How would it matter if if a certain state was heir to Rome? Why did people so desperately want to start a third Rome? For what exactly?
Thing is the political institution of the Roman Republic and Empire lasted such a long time as to evolve and change in massive ways institutionally and culturally compared to it's classic past, and being roman so too evolved from being a regional term denoting living in the roman empire, to post Renaissance being an heir and exemplary of the mightiness of antiquity! I'm pretty sure we've moved past the point of seriously arguing about it as the Tzar did during WW1. The meaning of Rome, goes past semantics and delves more deeply into the culture of "western civilisation!!" which most of the world abides by or is influenced by in some way.
yes, the world is Rome.
5:00 What is Rome?
Baby don't hurt me.
Don't hurt me.
No more.
Ancient Rome as an institution ended in 395
Western Rome died in 476
Eastern Rome died in 1453
Trebizond, the final direct remnant of Rome fell in 1461.
If we understand Rome as everything that continues the legacy of what started in Italy, then Rome is not really dead at all.
We are still heavily influenced by their legacy.
Rome was so amazing that she fell twice. Once in 476 and the twice in 1453. Thrice if you count the Holy Roman Empire in the 1800s
My view on this line of thought is that there are two dates for when Western and Eastern Rome both fell as Roma Lazarus (Western Rome) and Roma Continued (Eastern Rome). Because the two dates in my eyes that Western and Eastern Rome ended are 1453 (Eastern Rome) and 1648 (Western Rome).
I liked your discourse on truth a lot, things important to historiography like epistemology are so rarely discussed, yet have such huge implications for how we treat history!
I am the Roman Empire.
You could very well say that it is continuing today, not for the fact that there are latin language countries, but for the papacy, as it is the last continuing institution of the Roman state, even having its seat in Rome, Italy. Going back, even Julius Caesar held the title of Pontifex Maximus. While I am partial to the 1453 date, it is a point you can fairly make.
Ecumenical patriarch is a Roman institution too
Honestly one of the greatest videos I have seen on the matter!
Keep it up, and please just make something, which you are passionate about!
You are watching plenty of Maiorianus recently aren't you?
why
I’ve always been a fan of your videos for the humor and personality that you bring into your topics, and I was kinda trepidatious about watching this video as I felt it would be a bit dry/bland.
However, instead of that, I actually really appreciated the seriousness you put into this topic, starting off with the introduction of “what is truth?” The philosophic and academic tone I think were quite fitting, and I don’t think it would have been as good if you tackled it from your normal point of view.
I still hope you make more humorous content like rankings, but seeing more thoughtful and intrepid videos like this wouldn’t be bad either.
If you told me this is the most effort you’ve ever put into making a video, and least from a serious pov and not like recording or editing,I’d believe you.
You should be proud. I look forward to what you bring in the future.
Rome doesn't fall while I still stand
In my country Italy our books Say that in 476 the western Roman Empire fell but in 1453 Whit the fall of the costantinople the Roman Empire fell.
I think that:
- Properly and symbolically, it fell in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople and death of the last emperor.
- Politically, it fell in 1460 with the Ottoman conquest of the Despotate of Morea (which was the last piece of legal Roman land still unoccupied by 1453)
- In its entirety, it fell in 1479 with the fall of the Principality of Theodoro, which had been part of the 'illegal' Roman successor state of the empire of Trebizond.
I hate the Term “My Truth” as well. Had to reaffirm several times the difference between Subjective Perspective and Objective Truth.
You can believe in the truth or not, it would still be True.
im surprised you didnt cover constantine's conversion or theodosius's persecutions as possible dates for the end of the empire. there is an argument that rome lost its true cultural identity when it became christian (that i vehemently disagree with) and its an interesting topic to talk about.
What I like to think is that Rome transitioned into many new forms through it's history, before slowly fading during the Early-Late middle ages (elements like it's culture, political structure ((especially the senate)), language, military and empire all falling into history during this time period). As so putting any single date for the fall of the Roman Empire in my opinion isn't possible.
Rome was chipped away piece by piece, until the culture that came from bricks and turned it into marble faded away...
Probably when Chuck LaMagne died.
Note: I don't actually know if the Byzantine Empire lasted longer than the HRE.
Byzantines lasted until 1453, HRE until 1806
i see the end of the roman empire as the year 1460, the fall of constantinople being the end of the roman empire is like saying the fall of rome was the end, the year 1460 however was the year morea was lost to the ottoman empire, and the roman empire died
We can all agree that the Roman Empire fell when Michael the Drunkard sent that letter to the Pope saying Latin is a barbaric language.
Haven't even watched the video but 1453 is the real answer
Then why are you watching this video?
@@yourcasualservantofsauron9781 I just commented that as soon as I clicked on the video is what I meant
Awaiting a video on the glorious Z Zoman Zempire
I knew Honorius was the best roman emperor, thats truth
Great video. Perhaps the "when did Roman Empire started" will be good idea for next video
The Declaration of the Principate by Augustus, there is no doubt.
Ah yes the Sometimes Holy, Definitely not Roman and Sometimes an Empire.
Sometimes roman has well tho. I will die on the hill that if you get crowned i Rome by the guy that currently rule Rome, you have a right to call yourself roman.
If the ERE is Roman then the HRE def is.
To cite a very loibstery man: What do you mean by "Roman"? What do you mean by "empire"? What do you mean by "fall?
So basically, the Roman Empire was “we have the Roman Empire at home” for the Enlightenment
I would say 1453. Because it is the end of everything. The state, the culture and language are no longer prominent. The moment that date rolls by, I would say there is nothing identifiable Roman left. There is a legacy for sure, we are not our fathers or mothers, neither are our children us. The Eastern Roman empire was arguably the same empire, but not exactly the same as what came before, but after 1453 there is nothing really left that is identifiable Roman. Even the Greeks change culture under Ottoman run, similar to the Italians changing, making them pretty unrecognisable without the timeline of a continuous state. You could argue any dates beforehand but I would say that it is delusional to claim anything after 1453 really, maybe with the fall of the last Byzantine state, but after that there is nothing I would argue which is really Roman by that point.
Well I guess TECHNICALLY we never lost Vietnam
It would be nice to a video on Justinian, and maybe Theodosius and Constantine. Especially as something of a counter weight to the rather biased paganaboo videos on these Emperors from Maiorianus.
It depends how you see the question, if you see the kingdom, republic and the empire as different then the fall of the empire is after Augustus became emperor. It has to be after then as that’s when the empire technically started.
Ayo, speaking of rankings, could you do a ranking of all German / Holy Roman Monarchs?
Was this by any chance inspired by recent thread on r/Askhistorians which then linked to another amazing thread?
No. In truth, I don't use Reddit frequently, especially regarding History. It's much more of "passing the time" kind of thing for me.
@@spectrum1140 No shame in being a redditor
Everybody knows Rome never ended because of the plot to snatch Aurelian from the time of his death and bring him to the modern day. We’ll restore the world yet!
Rome HASN'T FALLEN
IT CONTINUE TO LIVE IN OUR HEART
We all know that the only true succesors are Greece and Italy
My perspective is that this question shines light on the way that human institutions evolve over time. The empire that fell in 1453 was different from the empire the Crusaders sacked in 1204, which was not the empire of Justinian, which was not the empire of Constantine, which wasn't the empire of Augustus, which wasn't the late republic, which wasn't the early republic, which wasn't the original kingdom.
We see massive changes, in government, religion, culture, language, institutions, and geography over that time, to the point where if you compare 1453 CE to 753 BCE, you'd scarcely see the similarities. It'd be like comparing a a human to an ancestor from 400 million years ago (essentially a fish) without taking note of the many, many small steps along the path that links the two of them together.
The lesson, to me, is that we are wired to see everything as a discrete entity, but reality is often not that simple. You'll find in history, as in biology and other sciences, as many examples of continuity as sharp, convenient cut-offs. Ultimately, there is no single easy answer to 'when Rome fell', and the best answer may depend on what aspects you are interested in or find important. I personally like 1453 because I feel like there's a bias in how people understand history that excludes that part of the world, but its far from the only answer.
Countries that theoretically have the claim to Rome to this day (although none, I mean none, acknowledge this in any way)
Spain - the legal successor to the Roman throne is technically Ferdinand of Aragon (I myself believe this is only honorary), and his descendants still have the claim to this day.
Italy - their hold on Rome does give them some legitimacy.
USA - their constitution is heavily inspired of the Roman Republic, therefore can be seen as a successor that way.
Turkey - their hold on Constantinople does give them some legitimacy, plus they are a direct successor state of the Ottomans.
Greece - they speak the same Greek that the early Empire used.
Vatican City - somewhat self-explanatory
San Marino - they are a remnant of the Empire going as back as when the Empire existed, making them technically a successor state to Rome.
Russia - they have a claim to be the third Rome.
Austria - they descended from the Habsburgs, the Holy Roman Emperors in addition to having the legal claim as Charles V/I have both the legal ERE claim and being the HRE.
there are more but they are more crackpot than this so I won't list why they have this claim.
making mac and cheese and listening to this
I believe that roman history really took a turn after the arab invasions. I don't have an objective basis for this belief but i always thought that before the rise of Islam, even though the Byzantines had lost their ability to project power and culture as they could during and before Justinian's reign, they had no equal polities that could challenge them mano o mano. In my opinion, during the second half of Heraclius' reign, a strugling empire turned into a nation in the constant threat of not existing. If we go by feelings alone, I think the Roman Empire fell when the Muslims came. I think this is also a good starting point to set for the medieval age too.
And they are still "coming" !
I personally love how you explained truth at the start and make it clear that truth doesn't actually exist, it is but a ploy made by your mind to justify your actions.
The Roman Empire has not fallen! It stays alive in our hearts. Roma aeterna! Roma invicta!
13:20 multiple Emperors happened long before Antonius Pius. Tiberius was given all the important powers of the Emperor(Maius Imperium, and Tribunician power) and was hailed Imperator before Augustus was dead.
Rome fell in 752 when the city of Rome officially left the empire for good with the new pope Stephen II who didn't recognize Constantinople's authority and laid the foundation for the papal states.
If we define Rome by battle prowess and the language, then Sardinia is the Roman Empire: Sardinian language is the closest to Latin, and the Sardinian brigade of the Italian Army is called "Dimonios" (demons) because that's what the Austro-Hungarians that first faced it called them.
But you'd first better ask them, because I don't want to insult them... They're scary.
Saying 476 was the end of the Roman Empire is cringe and BOGUS
I think the 1475 one was fair.
Honestly, the western roman empire should end in 476.
And the easter one in 1204. Why?
What is an empire? Its not just a title, it means, generally, that there is at least a large domain over many lands.
Now, when western rome is reduced to italy, and eastern rome is reduced to scraps of greece and turkey...what empire is there? Thats a kingdom at best imo.
Thank you! I hate “my truth”. There is only THE TRUTH & how different people perceive it.
68: The last Julio-Claudian emperor, Nero, is killed.
285: The first formal division of the empire into two distinct halves
330: The seat of power is moved from Rome to New Rome, Constantinople
380: Theodosius I decrees Christianity as the official state religion of the empire
395: Theodosius I dies as the last emperor to rule over a united empire
475: The last time Rome is ever the capital of any part of the empire
476: Romulus Augustus is deposed by Odoacer, after serving as the last emperor to rule from Italy, with Odoacer forming the Kingdom of Italy under the authority of the senate and emperor in Constantinople
480: Julius Nepos is the last emperor of the last province of the western empire
486: Syagrius rules the last European mainland rump state of the west, posthumously knows as the Kingdom of Soissons, until his death
493: Odoacer is killed and overthrown and his kingdom in Italy is taken by the Ostrogothic Kingdom
565: The last native Latin-speaking emperor, Justinian I, dies
610: Emperor Heraclius makes Greek the official language of the empire
751: The Lombards capture Ravenna, ending Roman rule over Ravenna and Rome
756: The formation of the Pope’s Papal States marks a key split between the Latin west and Greek east
800: Frankish king Charlemagne is crowned by the Pope as “Holy Roman Emperor”
843: The Treaty of Verdun divides the HRE into East, Central and West Francia for the first time.
880: The Treaty of Ribemont divides the Frankish Empire for the last time
962: Otto I is crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope, seeing him as Charlemagne’s successor
1054: The Great Schism officially divides the Christian Church into the Latin Catholic west and the Greek Orthodox east.
1071: The last Italian portion of the Roman Empire, Bari, is lost
1077: The Sultanate of Rûm (Turkish synonym for “Rome”) is established by the Seljuks following their Turkification of Anatolia after the battle of Manzikert.
1204: Latin crusaders sack and take Constantinople, dividing the empire amongst themselves
1261: Constantinople is reclaimed by the empire of Nicaea
1283: The last rump state of the Western Roman Empire, the Kingdom of Gwynedd, falls
1299: The Ottomans emerge from a Turkic beylik
1453: The Ottomans conquer Constantinople, and the last Constantinopolitan Roman emperor dies
1460: The last province of the Eastern Empire, the Despotate of Morea, is conquered by the Ottomans
1461: The Empire of Trebizond is conquered by the Ottomans
1475: The Principality of Theodoro, the rump state of Trebizond, is conquered by the Ottomans
1479: The Despotate of Epirus is conquered by the Ottomans
1494: Nephew of Constantine XI, Andreas Palaiologos’ titular rule over Constantinople ends after selling the rights of the crown to France
1502: Andreas Palaiologos’ titular rule over the Morea ends with his death, with his will decreeing Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain as successors, which is denied
1556: The abdication of Charles V of the HRE divided his realm between Spain and Austria
1648: The Peace of Westphalia ends the Thirty Years’ War
1797: Venice is conquered by Napoleon
1806: The HRE is dissolved
1922: The Ottoman Empire ends
cba to do anymore, fug dis shit.
Rome didn't fall in a day.
"there is no better school for virtue, no truer test of moral strength, than life in this same city of Rome." - Lucian (Nigrinus)
I'm going to blindly guess November 1st, 1922.
Wasn't correct btw
This video is a bit bs. What you should have said to honest is that you can't say when or did the Roman Empire fall because you don't know what's the Roman empire. You have no clear definition for it. This in itself is also bs. We have absolutely zero doubt about what is the Ottoman empire, Habsburg empire, French empire, British Empire, etc. It makes sense to be a bit unsure regarding the Roman empire, since it started in antiquity and lasted for thousands of years, so it naturally did evolve into many completely unrecognizable shapes. I mean, the state of Diocletian was different than the state of Augustus. Constantine's state was different than the one ruled by Diocletian. It gradually evolved from an empire ruled by Romans from Rome, to Latins, to one ruled technically by latinized barbarians. So, let's be honest, what constitutes a state is continuous legacy, organic institutional evolution, organic societal evolution, organic evolving history. The empire ended in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople. That's very much clear. Up to that point, the Roman state had clear and organic evolutionary flow in every aspect. Yes, the Ottomans did build on the legacy of the Roman state, yes, the Holy Roman empire did build on the legacy of the Roman state, yes, Russia is building on that legacy too, as do many other states, but they're just building on the legacy, these states have completely different origins and often pretty much unrelated origins. So, without a doubt, 1453 is the end of the Roman empire, just a fact. Everything else is simply muddying the water and endless philosophical rambling for the sake of it.
Just came upon your channel a few days ago. I really enjoy listening to your perspective, and I'm excited to see where you go with it.
I'd say that Michael the Drunkard calling Latin a "barbarian language" in a letter to the Pope is a pretty good candidate.
There once was a dream that was Rome.
A dream to purge this world of barbarity!
An interesting idea is that people groups can maintain their identity even after a change of religion, language and culture, like the Goths of the third century who were Germanic Pagans but in the early 8th century were Catholic Latin speakers whose culture had totally changed but still viewed themselves as Goths. But then you get the other way of viewing it where the people adopt the customs, language and religion of another where they have more in common with the people they've emulated than their old tradition but still think of themselves as their old people group, like with the Illyrian's there would have been a subsect of their society that was practically identical to Romans but still called themselves Illyrian's, an outsider would certainly think as much, where you have a situation in where someone quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, are they not a duck?
Likewise people groups that are not conquered will naturally change over time even if left in the same location, look at the France, France was around 1000 years ago and has direct continuity to now but a modern Frenchman wouldn't be able to understand the language and the customs would be quite alien to them.
Nah, just head-canon on part of desperate Christians trying to maintain some sort of connection to Roman greatness. *ANY OTHER* civilization that utterly abandoned it's political structure, societal hierarchy, religion, language, cultural values, architectural identity, geographical capital & general entire way of life itself would be recognized as utterly different from it's predecessors; it's no coincidence that Byzantine is the one where people are so desperate to make exceptions lmao.
The Visi/OstroGoths you mention aren't even recognized as Goth come the turn of the 8th century 💀 they were simply called Spaniards and Italians; what they "called themselves" doesn't matter, just as modern emo dweebs calling themselves "goth" doesn't matter. LARPing as something doesn't actually make you that thing, you'd do best to remember that.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no According to their own legal code they considered themselves to be and called themselves Goths, I just finished reading Peter Heathers book on the Goths that explains this in detail with reference to archaeological and literary evidence, come back to me when your head isn't up your ass. Likewise last I checked England speakers have a majority Latin-based/influenced language and are no longer Germanic Pagans Warriors, cultures and peoples change, if you ever read Archaic Latin it looks more like Runes, again as I mentioned in another comment Romans of the Middle Republican were completely different to Romans of the Early Empire, you go from an incredibly religious society of men who mainly value Honour to an agnostic society that changes religions and beliefs when fashionable that cares more for comfort than Honour, I'd say they certainly abandoned the vast majority of their prior identity, if you wanted to be really anal then by your standards you could say by the Third Century when Rome stopped being the capital that anyone to call themselves Roman are just larping. Again, come back to me when you read a few books and pull your head out of your ass, I evidently know more than you.
The goths were arian christians tho
@@atticusp6592 "According to their own legal code they considered themselves to be and called themselves Goths" Refer to my previous statement: "The Visi/OstroGoths you mention aren't even recognized as Goth come the turn of the 8th century 💀 they were simply called Spaniards and Italians; what they "called themselves" doesn't matter, just as modern emo dweebs calling themselves "goth" doesn't matter. LARPing as something doesn't actually make you that thing, you'd do best to remember that."
Culturally and spiritually speaking Rome never fell but politically and practically it ended in 1453 pick your choice. However Rome will never fall unless us and our future descendants forget thinking and know about its greatness Vivat imperator!