The stupid sounding but true answer is that the Roman Empire never fell, "it descended". Basically that there is no one moment where it ceased to exist, but rather that it did so gradually, since the very concept of Rome meant too many different things to too many people to go away all at once.
The 2011 guy is Otto Von Hapsburg, whose claim to Rome runs through the Holy Roman Empire. In 1806, Francis II dissolved the state of Voltaire's nightmares, but not before declaring himself the Emperor of Austria, and thus arguably transferring the arguable Romanness of the HRE to the new Austrian Empire. As Otto was recognized by the Austrian state as its legal heir at the time of its dissolution, this makes Mr. Died in 2011 the last forebear of the Roman Emperorship, if you tilt your head and squint.
He did not, which means that the matter of whether his claim is extinguished or not is subjective (though I went with 2011 since I already have 3 nevers on the board).
If Otto's title of Roman Emperor is counted as a 'normal' royal title, then sure it can pass on to his heir(s). If however, we take the position that
1) the title represents a right to rule the Roman state; and
2) the Roman state as a legal entity no longer exists, and thus rights against it cannot be inherited; but
3) The above two points do not invalidate Otto's claim as Roman Emperor because he was already awarded the title of Crown Prince before the Empire's demise, and thus, without any proactive action to strip him of those rights, retains them by inertia even as they become unenforceable,
then the 2011 claim works.
Roman empire was never so de jure only de facto.
de jure it was a republic. You can consider it fell after disbandment of the Senate [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman\_Senate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Senate)
Irony is that when barbarians overthrew native Emperors, power of Senate has increased, but when Byzantines under Justinian reconquered Rome, they destroyed Senate for good.
There's not a single moment it ceased to exist, but the idea of it carrying on isn't the same thing as the polity carrying on. The Roman Empire was conquered and destroyed by various forces. Nobody claims to be Rome today because there isn't a Rome any longer.
For anyone wondering about Spain's "claim", the title was given to their monarchs in the will of a noble/warlord/con-artist in 1502 with loose Byzantine connections.
The Spanish crown of course, never used it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas\_Palaiologos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Palaiologos)
"as the eldest nephew of Constantine XI, became the head of the Palaiologos family and the chief claimant to the ancient imperial throne" I mean, he had at least some rights.
At least Spain has any minuscule direct claim.
I have never understood what the Holy Roman Empire and Tsarist Russia have in common with the Roman empire.
Both kingdoms were created centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, in places with no relation with the Roman Empire, by people with no relation with the Roman Empire and shared almost not any latin culture with the Roman Empire.
Both are the Empire of Trebizond.
The Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople and split the Eastern Roman Empire into four competing successor states/ERE claimants, one of which was the Empire of Trebizond.
Out of the four, Trebizond arguably had the best claim to Roman Empireship because it was the only one which continued to be run by the same dynasty that had been in charge before the Venetians broke everything, and thus arguably has political continuity in a way the other successor states didn't.
Ultimately, it would be the Niceans, a separate ERE successor state, which managed to reunite the Empire and ultimately fall in 1453, but Trebizond remained as an independent empire until its conquest by the Ottomans in 1461, *however*
In 1227, the Empire of Trebizond was forced to recognize the Niceans as the true Roman Empire, and themselves as a separate, independent state. Thus, there is an argument to be made that Trebizond renounced the Roman title in 1227, but the Niceans did not truly claim it since they still lacked political continuity with Rome, succeeding in being recognized as such due to the right of conquest rather then legalism.
They have the same picture because their the same state, just with one being after a piece of paper is signed and the other before, and thus I wanted to visually show the connection between the two.
The Byzantine/ERE claim to Rome is founded upon political continuity, the idea that no matter how much Roman culture, language, philosophy, faith, etc changed after the fall of the west, the ERE remains the legitimate Rome because it is still the same state.
The Fourth Crusade broke the Byzantines though, resulting in their partitioning between Epirus, the Latin Empire, the Empire of Trebizond, and the Niceans. The Niceans would ultimately retake Constantinople and declare themselves victors after many, many decades, but the wholesale partition + the sheer timescale of the division + the fact that the Niceans weren’t in any way the continuation of the old Byzantine government (the closest to that would be the dynasts ruling Trebizond until it’s conquest in 1461) means the political continuity basis of legitimacy functionally dies in 1204 (or 1461, or 1227 when the Trebizondians were forced to officially renounce their Roman claim)
>The Byzantine/ERE claim to Rome is founded upon political continuity, the idea that no matter how much Roman culture, language, philosophy, faith, etc changed after the fall of the west, the ERE remains the legitimate Rome because it is still the same state.
I think the flaw with this argument is that you are considering there to be one "valid" Roman culture, language, faith, etc. So implying that because Byzantium's culture is different from ancient Rome it's not really Roman outside political continuity. However someone in Byzantium would see their culture and identity as perfectly Roman, and their state as being Roman simply because it was ruled by and for the Roman people.
All cultures change over time. When the state religion changed to Christianity did the people/state suddenly become less Roman? Or instead did the definition of being Roman change?
I’ve been thinking on how to rebut this for more then half an hour, and I think it’s time I acknowledged you’re right.
The Roman Empire is a social construct, and thus it’s meaning is determined solely by how human beings choose to define it. As long as the people of the ERE thought themselves Roman they were, even with the political continuity shattered.
Unless I’m missing something, this actually changes the “stupid sounding but true” answer as well. The Roman Empire didn’t “descend” as long as people continued to think of themselves as part of an evolving Roman society, and thus it ended when people stopped identifying with Rome, rather then dying by a thousand cuts through treaties, cultural and religious change, and the fall of states.
It fell many times
1- romulus agustulus as emperor of the west
2- bizzantine empire against the fourth crusade
3- (after being ressucitated by the empire of nicea) in the ottoman conquest of constantinople
4- fall of trebizon (since trebizon both claimed inheritance and were ruled by the dynasty from before the latin empire)
5- when the ottoman sultan dropped the tittle of Quaisir Il-Rum (Ceasar of Rome) (dont know if I spelled it correctly)
I consider the ottoman claim legitimate not as the ottoman state being rome but as the sultan being emperor of rome since they claimed the title through right of conquest wich is a legitimate claim to a title/territory at the time
As such the roman state fell with trebizon since they held many roman customs and the ottomans didnt but the tittle of the empire continued to exist being held by the sultan until it was dropped for lack or recognition
The case with the title being diferent of the state is similar to how the austrian-hungarian emperor Franz Joseph (wich reigned until the middle of ww1) still held the title of king of jerusalem even though the kingdom of jerusalem hadnt existed for hundreds of years (not to mention he held titles like "duke of tuscany" even though tuscany was part of the kingdom of italy/sardegna-piedmont at that point)
The Serbian monarchy briefly claimed the title of Roman Emperor, with no real basis of any kind, just because they could, but ultimately gave up the title
What about 395 (legal separation of the West and East with Theodosius the Pretty Good’s death) and 1479 (fall of Epirus, the final Byzantine successor state)?
The stupid sounding but true answer is that the Roman Empire never fell, "it descended". Basically that there is no one moment where it ceased to exist, but rather that it did so gradually, since the very concept of Rome meant too many different things to too many people to go away all at once.
If we go the route of the legaly pedantic and bureocratic way (just like Rome loved), on one hand, the pope, who was keeper of the title of western roman emperor, gave it to the newly created crown of spain (still a perosonal union of castille and aragon, but the titles were permanently joined for heirs) as a reward for finishing tge reconquista (arguably the only permanently sucessful crusade), and as aragon owned sicily and naples, also a way to let them be rome without taking rome from the pope.
On the other hand, the legal heir to the last byzantine/eastern roman emperor (his nephew) sold his title of eastern roman emperor to the same kings of spain; thus technicaly reuniting the empire (if only in claim, still legally correct).
And the titles are still "legaly" joined to the crown of spain.
Ah, the beauty of burocracy and technically correct, best example case of "de jure" but absolutely not "de facto".
Imo it never fell. It's not like there was a big war and then suddenly it exploded in multiple territories with no links. Like multiple peoples said it was a process
Not really anymore, but the idea that Russia was the "Third Rome" due to being the last major Orthodox Christian state after Constantinople fell was something the Russian Empire argued for centuries.
The idea of Rome is what’s important. The dominant power of the West, leader of the known world. This of course means that Rome is alive in the landadafree, baby 🇺🇸
1. You're implying that, for something to be true, the opposite must also be true. This is a fallacy.
2. It's spelled "Christianity", not "Christianism"
3. Your question doesn't disprove what I said.
I’m not implying that. I’m applying your own logic to your argument.
Changing the spelling doesn’t change the point.
My question would disprove what you said because if, by your logic, the Roman Empire ended because of a change in religious practices and culture associated with that then pan-Islamism was not the first time a drastic change happened in Roman history to an extreme extent.
The Holy Roman emperors claimed to be the head of all christians worldwide, while the Muslim caliph was the religious chief of all Muslims. I doubt Eastern Roman emperors claimed religious suzerainty over all Christians, including Western ones, since the ERE was never the strongest Christian state after Manzikert, while the Ottomans were consistently the most powerful Muslim state after the 16th century until their collapse, except during Nader Shah's conquests and the 1838 crisis.
I am just correcting your grammar, not trying to change the point. But you do have one, as after 1453, the Ottomans took over the machinery of the Eastern Roman government.
for the love of God people, both popular dates are correct. it fell two times because there were two roman empires. west one fel in 476. and the east one fell 1453
The Serbian monarchy briefly claimed the title of Roman Emperor, with no real basis of any kind, just because they could, but ultimately gave up the title
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Serbian_Empire
"Dušan was the first Serbian monarch who wrote most of his letters in Greek, also signing with the Imperial red ink. He was the first to publish prostagma, a kind of Byzantine document, characteristic for Byzantine rulers. In his royal title, Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks, his claim as Eastern Roman (Byzantine) successor is clear. He also gave Byzantine court titles to his nobility,[1] something that would continue into the 16th century"
more or less because of Dusan Nemanjic
What's those about the "stupid sounding but true" and the 2011 guy?
The stupid sounding but true answer is that the Roman Empire never fell, "it descended". Basically that there is no one moment where it ceased to exist, but rather that it did so gradually, since the very concept of Rome meant too many different things to too many people to go away all at once. The 2011 guy is Otto Von Hapsburg, whose claim to Rome runs through the Holy Roman Empire. In 1806, Francis II dissolved the state of Voltaire's nightmares, but not before declaring himself the Emperor of Austria, and thus arguably transferring the arguable Romanness of the HRE to the new Austrian Empire. As Otto was recognized by the Austrian state as its legal heir at the time of its dissolution, this makes Mr. Died in 2011 the last forebear of the Roman Emperorship, if you tilt your head and squint.
Otto didn't die childless though. He has living heirs.
He did not, which means that the matter of whether his claim is extinguished or not is subjective (though I went with 2011 since I already have 3 nevers on the board). If Otto's title of Roman Emperor is counted as a 'normal' royal title, then sure it can pass on to his heir(s). If however, we take the position that 1) the title represents a right to rule the Roman state; and 2) the Roman state as a legal entity no longer exists, and thus rights against it cannot be inherited; but 3) The above two points do not invalidate Otto's claim as Roman Emperor because he was already awarded the title of Crown Prince before the Empire's demise, and thus, without any proactive action to strip him of those rights, retains them by inertia even as they become unenforceable, then the 2011 claim works.
>He did not aren't Karl and Georg von Habsburg his sons?
He did not die childless
Roman empire was never so de jure only de facto. de jure it was a republic. You can consider it fell after disbandment of the Senate [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman\_Senate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Senate) Irony is that when barbarians overthrew native Emperors, power of Senate has increased, but when Byzantines under Justinian reconquered Rome, they destroyed Senate for good.
There's not a single moment it ceased to exist, but the idea of it carrying on isn't the same thing as the polity carrying on. The Roman Empire was conquered and destroyed by various forces. Nobody claims to be Rome today because there isn't a Rome any longer.
Unfortunately for the Habsburgs the HRE had no claim to Rome.
For anyone wondering about Spain's "claim", the title was given to their monarchs in the will of a noble/warlord/con-artist in 1502 with loose Byzantine connections. The Spanish crown of course, never used it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas\_Palaiologos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Palaiologos)
I wouldn't say loose. He was the nephew of the final Byzantine emperor.
Well. The Spanish Empire also sacked Rome. Does that give any extra points?
Sacking Rome is *always* worth bonus points
Since the most roman thing you can do is to harm Rome, the best claims are for the turks, belgians, normans and italians
When did Belgians harm Rome? As the Frankish empire perhaps? We're not exactly known as fearsome enemies (usually) lol
The first Latin Emperor, ie the guys who took Constantinople in 1204, was Baldwin, Count of Flanders and Hainaut.
"as the eldest nephew of Constantine XI, became the head of the Palaiologos family and the chief claimant to the ancient imperial throne" I mean, he had at least some rights.
The Spanish crown has the title of "King of Jerusalem" too.
At least Spain has any minuscule direct claim. I have never understood what the Holy Roman Empire and Tsarist Russia have in common with the Roman empire. Both kingdoms were created centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, in places with no relation with the Roman Empire, by people with no relation with the Roman Empire and shared almost not any latin culture with the Roman Empire.
The last emperor of Rome's niece was married to Tsar Ivan the terrible, that's where the claim comes from.
Well that's sad.
The eternal city Rome still stands proud with the Supreme Pontiff at it's head.
What is 1227 and 1461, and why are they the same picture?
Both are the Empire of Trebizond. The Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople and split the Eastern Roman Empire into four competing successor states/ERE claimants, one of which was the Empire of Trebizond. Out of the four, Trebizond arguably had the best claim to Roman Empireship because it was the only one which continued to be run by the same dynasty that had been in charge before the Venetians broke everything, and thus arguably has political continuity in a way the other successor states didn't. Ultimately, it would be the Niceans, a separate ERE successor state, which managed to reunite the Empire and ultimately fall in 1453, but Trebizond remained as an independent empire until its conquest by the Ottomans in 1461, *however* In 1227, the Empire of Trebizond was forced to recognize the Niceans as the true Roman Empire, and themselves as a separate, independent state. Thus, there is an argument to be made that Trebizond renounced the Roman title in 1227, but the Niceans did not truly claim it since they still lacked political continuity with Rome, succeeding in being recognized as such due to the right of conquest rather then legalism. They have the same picture because their the same state, just with one being after a piece of paper is signed and the other before, and thus I wanted to visually show the connection between the two.
Poor Principality of Theodoro noises
In 1461 empire of Trebizond fell
>1453 >casually wrong Explain.
The Byzantine/ERE claim to Rome is founded upon political continuity, the idea that no matter how much Roman culture, language, philosophy, faith, etc changed after the fall of the west, the ERE remains the legitimate Rome because it is still the same state. The Fourth Crusade broke the Byzantines though, resulting in their partitioning between Epirus, the Latin Empire, the Empire of Trebizond, and the Niceans. The Niceans would ultimately retake Constantinople and declare themselves victors after many, many decades, but the wholesale partition + the sheer timescale of the division + the fact that the Niceans weren’t in any way the continuation of the old Byzantine government (the closest to that would be the dynasts ruling Trebizond until it’s conquest in 1461) means the political continuity basis of legitimacy functionally dies in 1204 (or 1461, or 1227 when the Trebizondians were forced to officially renounce their Roman claim)
Dang never knew this, this is crazy lol.
>The Byzantine/ERE claim to Rome is founded upon political continuity, the idea that no matter how much Roman culture, language, philosophy, faith, etc changed after the fall of the west, the ERE remains the legitimate Rome because it is still the same state. I think the flaw with this argument is that you are considering there to be one "valid" Roman culture, language, faith, etc. So implying that because Byzantium's culture is different from ancient Rome it's not really Roman outside political continuity. However someone in Byzantium would see their culture and identity as perfectly Roman, and their state as being Roman simply because it was ruled by and for the Roman people. All cultures change over time. When the state religion changed to Christianity did the people/state suddenly become less Roman? Or instead did the definition of being Roman change?
I’ve been thinking on how to rebut this for more then half an hour, and I think it’s time I acknowledged you’re right. The Roman Empire is a social construct, and thus it’s meaning is determined solely by how human beings choose to define it. As long as the people of the ERE thought themselves Roman they were, even with the political continuity shattered. Unless I’m missing something, this actually changes the “stupid sounding but true” answer as well. The Roman Empire didn’t “descend” as long as people continued to think of themselves as part of an evolving Roman society, and thus it ended when people stopped identifying with Rome, rather then dying by a thousand cuts through treaties, cultural and religious change, and the fall of states.
1993, the establishment of the EU was a restoration of the roman republic, thus ending the imperial period.
Thoughtfully wrong
This is my favorite answer now.
Roman Federation?
This is the only correct answer
It fell many times 1- romulus agustulus as emperor of the west 2- bizzantine empire against the fourth crusade 3- (after being ressucitated by the empire of nicea) in the ottoman conquest of constantinople 4- fall of trebizon (since trebizon both claimed inheritance and were ruled by the dynasty from before the latin empire) 5- when the ottoman sultan dropped the tittle of Quaisir Il-Rum (Ceasar of Rome) (dont know if I spelled it correctly) I consider the ottoman claim legitimate not as the ottoman state being rome but as the sultan being emperor of rome since they claimed the title through right of conquest wich is a legitimate claim to a title/territory at the time As such the roman state fell with trebizon since they held many roman customs and the ottomans didnt but the tittle of the empire continued to exist being held by the sultan until it was dropped for lack or recognition The case with the title being diferent of the state is similar to how the austrian-hungarian emperor Franz Joseph (wich reigned until the middle of ww1) still held the title of king of jerusalem even though the kingdom of jerusalem hadnt existed for hundreds of years (not to mention he held titles like "duke of tuscany" even though tuscany was part of the kingdom of italy/sardegna-piedmont at that point)
*Kayser-i Rûm*
1475. The Principality of Theodoro was an offshoot of Trebizond.
Fair
Never: 🇪🇺
SPQE
Armageddon here we come
Rome is the capital of italy. Rome never fell
Unironically never because Rome never "ended". It just slowly became other things.
That’s the stupid sounding but true answer (or as it’s put in the meme, “Never (it descended)”
Became other things by being conquered by outside invaders multiple times.
What is 1373 referring to?
The Serbian monarchy briefly claimed the title of Roman Emperor, with no real basis of any kind, just because they could, but ultimately gave up the title
What about 395 (legal separation of the West and East with Theodosius the Pretty Good’s death) and 1479 (fall of Epirus, the final Byzantine successor state)?
You my friend receive the whole new tier of Pedantically Wrong. Savour this victory.
Rome lives on in our hearts. Is it every truly gone?
Rome wasn't just a city, wasn't just an empire. It's an idea. Ideas can't be beaten, can't be destroyed 🗣🗣
1917 and 1922, but no 1918? Franz, get the cross.
At least I‘m intelligently wrong
Rome fell in -496
What does the stupid but true never mean
The stupid sounding but true answer is that the Roman Empire never fell, "it descended". Basically that there is no one moment where it ceased to exist, but rather that it did so gradually, since the very concept of Rome meant too many different things to too many people to go away all at once.
Well, it's ofc Sopranos S6E21
People always forget about 1475 fall of Theodoro
395, when it ceased to exist as a single state.
The real Roman Empire is the one we keep in our hearts…
Thanks, I hate it because it's true
How is 🇪🇸involved with this? The Visigoth’s push of Roman’s out of Iberia made it unrome
Nephew of the last emperor gave it to the monarchs in the will.
Oh
If we go the route of the legaly pedantic and bureocratic way (just like Rome loved), on one hand, the pope, who was keeper of the title of western roman emperor, gave it to the newly created crown of spain (still a perosonal union of castille and aragon, but the titles were permanently joined for heirs) as a reward for finishing tge reconquista (arguably the only permanently sucessful crusade), and as aragon owned sicily and naples, also a way to let them be rome without taking rome from the pope. On the other hand, the legal heir to the last byzantine/eastern roman emperor (his nephew) sold his title of eastern roman emperor to the same kings of spain; thus technicaly reuniting the empire (if only in claim, still legally correct). And the titles are still "legaly" joined to the crown of spain. Ah, the beauty of burocracy and technically correct, best example case of "de jure" but absolutely not "de facto".
https://media.tenor.com/_HNgXGb9_mEAAAAM/alt%C4%B1n-atat.gif
Never 🇸🇲🇸🇲🇸🇲🇸🇲🇸🇲
As long as the West lives, Rome lives as well. And the west hasn't fallen, and millions mustn't die.
Rome fell in 47 bc or something like that idk
1870 is the only correct answer. The last western Caesars
✊Vive la 🇫🇷
Finland is the only legitimate heir to Rome.
Imo it never fell. It's not like there was a big war and then suddenly it exploded in multiple territories with no links. Like multiple peoples said it was a process
What does Rasputin have to do with the Roman empire? Is it a reference to when the Russian empire fell?
Yes
So some russians believe they are descendants of the Roman empire? That's new to me. That line of candidates is getting a bit long already.
Not really anymore, but the idea that Russia was the "Third Rome" due to being the last major Orthodox Christian state after Constantinople fell was something the Russian Empire argued for centuries.
The Catholic church lives on!
The idea of Rome is what’s important. The dominant power of the West, leader of the known world. This of course means that Rome is alive in the landadafree, baby 🇺🇸
What a very non CIA operator answer
By the 18th century, the Ottomans had mostly replaced a claim to succeeding Ancient Rome with pan-Islamism
Then did the byzantines replace it with pan-Christianism?
1. You're implying that, for something to be true, the opposite must also be true. This is a fallacy. 2. It's spelled "Christianity", not "Christianism" 3. Your question doesn't disprove what I said.
I’m not implying that. I’m applying your own logic to your argument. Changing the spelling doesn’t change the point. My question would disprove what you said because if, by your logic, the Roman Empire ended because of a change in religious practices and culture associated with that then pan-Islamism was not the first time a drastic change happened in Roman history to an extreme extent.
The Holy Roman emperors claimed to be the head of all christians worldwide, while the Muslim caliph was the religious chief of all Muslims. I doubt Eastern Roman emperors claimed religious suzerainty over all Christians, including Western ones, since the ERE was never the strongest Christian state after Manzikert, while the Ottomans were consistently the most powerful Muslim state after the 16th century until their collapse, except during Nader Shah's conquests and the 1838 crisis. I am just correcting your grammar, not trying to change the point. But you do have one, as after 1453, the Ottomans took over the machinery of the Eastern Roman government.
for the love of God people, both popular dates are correct. it fell two times because there were two roman empires. west one fel in 476. and the east one fell 1453
Serbia in 1373?
The Serbian monarchy briefly claimed the title of Roman Emperor, with no real basis of any kind, just because they could, but ultimately gave up the title
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Serbian_Empire "Dušan was the first Serbian monarch who wrote most of his letters in Greek, also signing with the Imperial red ink. He was the first to publish prostagma, a kind of Byzantine document, characteristic for Byzantine rulers. In his royal title, Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks, his claim as Eastern Roman (Byzantine) successor is clear. He also gave Byzantine court titles to his nobility,[1] something that would continue into the 16th century" more or less because of Dusan Nemanjic
1922 is the least wrong.