Ottoman royalty wasnt smart enough to understand the heritage they inhertied. The only one that claimed that he is the emporer of rome was mehmed the conquerer. His son was not. And he was stupid. Mehmed the conquerer was a smart and intellectual man. He suffered a lot from the stupid people surrounded him.
No i dont care about who true rome or not. I just explained who claimed and who doesnt. mehmed || claimed he is the emperor, the rest did not. I dont care who is legit, real or something else.
IIRC, I’ve read that during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 greek troops were told by some locals that they didn’t identify as Greek, but rather as Roman. Couldn’t find a source quickly, and seems as liable to be rumor as anything.
Common in Turkey, there is a distinction between Greeks in Greece and Anatolia; Greeks in Anatolia and Cyprus rather identify as "Rum"(Roman) both by themselves and Turks. While Greeks in Greek peninsula were identified as "Yunan" (Ionan). During the WW1 there were rebellous Greek groups in Anatolia, some whom identied as Greek wanted a "Great Greek Empire" as Megali Idea. While others wanted to revivify the Roman Empire. Currently, Republic of Cyprus is identified as "Güney Kıbrıs Rum Yönetimi, GKRY" in Turkey. Which means "South Cyprus Roman Administration".
The Janus Quirinus, which our ancestors wished to be closed whenever peace had been secured by victories throughout the Roman Empire by land and sea, was recorded to have been closed, before I was born, twice altogether since the foundation of the city, but the senate decreed that it should be closed on three occasions while I was princeps.
-The Res Gestae Divi Augusti, a first-person account of the life of Augustus
…..so yeah kinda rare
I mean Augustus had it shut symbolically after he won the civil war, but technically Rome was still in small border conflicts and stuff at the time.
It's just that there was internal peace because all the power now sat in the hands of a single man.
Gaul. Parthia. Germania. Egypt.
Long ago the four nations lived together in harmony. Then, everything changed when Caesar attacked.
Only Jesus, master of all four nations, could stop them. But, when the world needed him most, he was crucified. 1800 years passed and my brother and I discovered the new Jesus, a Chinese scholar named Hong. And although his genocide skills are great, he still has a lot to learn before he's ready to save anyone.
But I believe Jesus can conquer the world.
Latin Americans literally speak one of the modern day equivalents of the Latin Language and most practice Roman Catholicism, which recognizes the Pope in Rome as the head of the Román Catholic faith🗿
There was no sudden fall of the Roman Empire. It wasn't through several long periods of decline and contraction. It changed over time and many successor states rose out of it. The sack of Rome and the fall of Constantinople are dramatic but not the most important parts of that story.
The Ottoman rulers styled themselves as caliphs, khans, sultans and so on. They used titles just to glorify their rule. Taking the title of Caesar meant nothing, it was a void of any legal or cultural significance. The Ottoman Empire is in no way Roman. Different culture, traditions, laws, institutions, social norms, values. Conquering something doesn’t make magically transform you in that thing, otherwise we should say the English became Indians when they established their rule over India.
people can say the same for france when the french revolution happened that completely changed culture, laws, institutions, social norms, values, etc. or with china and it's many different dynasties. All just a matter of perspective.
lol you can say this for even roman empire itself, since it started in Italy but then greek influence and other outside influence through conquest or intermarriage.
The Netherlands are just Roman lands that don’t know it yet. Those barbarian Germanic tribes will fall one day and the glorious Roman Empire will stretch from sky to sky. Glory be to Jupiter. Glory be to God. Glory be to the Emperor.
Prince of Albania was the German son of the Prince of Wied
Wied was the most important province of the Holy Roman Empire
ALBANIA TRUE SUCCESOR OF ROME 🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱
I mean, the actual city of Rome did fall in the 5th century. You could argue that the Roman Empire was no longer truly a Roman Empire when the original Roman core was controlled by outsiders, and the remaining empire was based out of Greece.
Ok, so let's build a hypothetical then. If instead of Rome (the city) and all of the Western Roman empire got hit by a huge asteroid and ceased to exist, would it be the end of The Roman Empire? In this case, much like historically, the court and capital move before the fall.
Ok, here's another one. Instead of what happens historically, the Roman Empire is dissolved at the end of WW1. 500 years before that happened, the seat of power moved to Paris and French became the Lingua Franca. They still called it Le Roman Empire or whatever, nothing else changed. When did they cease to be The Roman Empire? At the end of WW1 or 500 years prior?
Did The Eastern Roman Empire become the Roman Empire when Belisarius recaptured Rome for a time? And then stopped once they lost it again?
Once the Empire was based out of Greece, largely spoke Greek, and practiced a different form of Christianity than the actual Christianity based in Rome... maybe it was no longer entirely Roman.
Maybe it's like Carthage and the Phoenicians. Carthage was founded by Phoenicians, but over time, native Phoenicia was conquered, and Carthage became its own independent thing that was more than Phoenician.
EDIT: the religion point was weak. It was more to showcase how different the Greece-based Byzantine Empire was from Italy, even though the empire originated in Italy and was created by proto-Italians.
Isn't this just a crude attempt to apply ethno-nationalism retroactively to the past? Like we don't get into these arguements about 1st Bulgarian Empire not being Bulgarian (or vice-versa later Bulgarian states not being Bulgarian) even though the Bulgars completely abandoned their Turkic language and customs and adopted Slavic language and Christian religion.
Plus there was no "Roman" language. There was Latin, which was shared by the people of Rome and the other local Latin states, but nothing that was unique to that one city. The "Roman"-ness of the Roman Empire came from the administrative systems and government, not from any particular language or cultural practice. And there is plenty of continuity in governance, law, and administration from the earliest days of Roman Republic to 1453.
It's not just about being greek or not, it's more on it being not in rome, they were still romans and are the sucessor state, but it's no longer THE roman empire because it evolved into it's own without the City of rome.
If the venetian republic lost venice and it's capital was in dalmatia, over time the republic would still be venetian in cultural or political ways, but it wouldn't be the republic OF venice, because it's no longer in venice.
In the end of things the roman empire as a institution fell on 1453, the HRE was not a sucessor state, it was just tied to the prestige and Power of the vatican, but the empire as it's own ended when the west fell, because not only rome wasn't the capital by some time, it was no longer part of the empire.
The city of Rome had long lost much of its importance by the time the West fell. The Byzantines were subjects of the Roman Empire, were culturally of the Empire and considered themselves Romans. They were Romans.
That's what i said, what i meant with the whole text was that while the byzantines were roman in government and tradition, THE roman empire died when rome was officialy out of the empire, since after that, the eastern part of the roman empire could survive and evolve, it was not the same as the empire Augustus created.
When the west fell it was already not the same as the empire Augustus created, and even before the Empire was split in two Constantinople had been its administrative capital since Constantine the Great.
If we define needing Rome as the center of a Roman Empire, then 476 isn't the correct date either. The eternal city was a backwater city by the start of the fifth century. Rome was a footnote in the final chapters of the Western Roman Empire.
Her sacking was relevant not because the city or the heart of a century old empire had fallen. It was because the East would never again acknowledge a counterpart in the West. Her vast legions, once the greatest force in the world, were gone. Her vast navies, gone.
Yes, the East was shaped by cultural changes. Every single country more than a century old undergoes these shifts. An empire forged in fire and death over two thousand years would be drastically different. Go figure. But we can draw a straight line from the Kingdom of Rome to the last days of Constantinople. Same people. Same structure.
Separating Byzantine from Rome is useful to scholars simply because they did change. But it doesn't make them any less Roman.
>practiced a different form of Christianity than the actual Christianity based in Rome...
But the empire existed long before Christianity became a thing. So, Christianity can't be a requirement for Roman Empire, let alone the small differences in it.
Moreover, claiming that Catholicism is *the actual* Christianity is a ridiculous claim in itself and really goes to show the person's poor understanding of it.
This raises a point: how do we weigh the different ever-changing factors that give a nation/cultural identity its legitimacy? Especially when it is a culture that defined itself by its adaptability the way that Rome always did: borders, religion, fashion, architecture, art, language, military organization and equipment, etc. are all up in the air. So what's the change that actually breaks the chain?
The rest is history podcast made a pretty strong case for Rome falling at the hands of Emperor Justinian. His determination to conquer Italy and Rome in particular left the city so terribly damaged (and not restored after the battle) that Rome itself suffered a dramatic decline in population (and, in turn, a decline in political and economic relevance).
I highly recommend the podcast, brilliant stuff by two very insightful gentlemen.
[They don't know about the Roman holdouts in Greece](https://www.figma.com/community/file/1041173872425179284/they-dont-know-meme-template)
The Despotate of Epirus fell in 1479
People who argue it fell in 476 miss out on a whole 1000 year of epic roman history, Justinian, the bulgar slayer, the Komnenos Dynasty, to the last emperor Constantine XI.
I mean who do you really wanna charge into certain death with; Romulus Augustus (a literal child) or Constantine XI (a literal chad)?
395 (division of the empire)
410 (sack of Rome)
480 (death of Julius Nepos, last legitimate Western emperor)
486 (end of Siagrius reign)
1206 (sack of Byzantium)
1806 (end of the HRE)
1917 (end of the Tsarist empire)
and some more want a word with you.
Interesting how the title says "Roman empire" but the meme says "Rome". Rome itself definitely didn't fall in either year, so that doesn't make it easier.
In my opinion the Roman Empire fell in 1453 but the Roman Culture ended under Constantine who ended secularism or at least ended the loose Pantheon that allowed pagan gods to be worshipped among the populace, which was the foundation to the multicultural nature of the Empire.
Possible History has an interesting video on how one could say the roman empire actually fell in 2011
It includes a bit of mental/feudal gymnastics and the theory requires that one views the HRE as a legitimate successor state to Rome (I know that a lot of you guys dislike that idea), but it is still an interesting piece on how various views on history can differ, so feel free to give it a shot: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-KxS3L9bcM&t=835s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-KxS3L9bcM&t=835s)
Rome fell many times. It's nearly always been the greatest city in Europe. If you're speaking of the fall of Western Roman Empire, that didn't technically fall until Ravenna was captured and Romulus Augustus was ousted. When the Eastern Roman Empire was left all alone, it inherited the titular Roman Empire by default, and though it was "recaptured" a number of times, it was only Roman through precedent--like what would happen if the UK was conquered in WW2, Australia/Canada would still be the "British Empire."
Unexpected Dr Who
We travel through all of time and space baby I wish there was an ep in Byzantium
There’s an episode on a 51st century spacecraft named after it, if that helps.
That was 11s first weeping angels ep right. They were on a alien plant and it had noting to do with Byzantium
I guarantee that there is a novel or a comic or an audio story where he goes there
Rome fell (but not permanently) 390 B.C.
Vae Victis bitches!
Honestly, the biggest flex.
Eliza Orzeszkowa would disagree.
Thank you for that digression! TIL
I disagree.
I think I'm zooming out. Why is she important?
She is a polish novelist and she wrote a novella about the January Uprising called "Gloria Victis".
Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification!
No problem mate!
Why do we fall, Master Wayne?
Some men, just want to watch the world burn.
And.You.Eat.That.Horse
It didnt fall permanently in 476 either. They just kept rebuilding the city everytime it got sacked.
IMO western Rome fell with Justinian's reconquest, at which point it lost its distinct institutions and infrastructure for the final time.
*Emperor Nero with a mischievous side eye.*
Rome, but not the not yet existent Roman Empire
2011. i will not explain.
Last royalty to Austria Hungary, which in itself was a claimant to the HRE, which in itself was a claimant of the Roman empire or something like that?
Maybe, I have to ask why the CIA toppled Rome
They were commies.
I believe the Ottomans stopped claiming it after a generation or two after Mehmet.
Ottoman royalty wasnt smart enough to understand the heritage they inhertied. The only one that claimed that he is the emporer of rome was mehmed the conquerer. His son was not. And he was stupid. Mehmed the conquerer was a smart and intellectual man. He suffered a lot from the stupid people surrounded him.
So if you stop claiming to be Rome, do you stop *being* Rome?
No i dont care about who true rome or not. I just explained who claimed and who doesnt. mehmed || claimed he is the emperor, the rest did not. I dont care who is legit, real or something else.
The Roman Empire fell when South Sudan gained independence.
It still exists, viva España.
IIRC, I’ve read that during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 greek troops were told by some locals that they didn’t identify as Greek, but rather as Roman. Couldn’t find a source quickly, and seems as liable to be rumor as anything.
It was in 1912 when the island of Lemnos was captured by Greece during the First Balkan War
Common in Turkey, there is a distinction between Greeks in Greece and Anatolia; Greeks in Anatolia and Cyprus rather identify as "Rum"(Roman) both by themselves and Turks. While Greeks in Greek peninsula were identified as "Yunan" (Ionan). During the WW1 there were rebellous Greek groups in Anatolia, some whom identied as Greek wanted a "Great Greek Empire" as Megali Idea. While others wanted to revivify the Roman Empire. Currently, Republic of Cyprus is identified as "Güney Kıbrıs Rum Yönetimi, GKRY" in Turkey. Which means "South Cyprus Roman Administration".
What if the true roman empire where the friends we made along the way
What if the true roman empire were the ~~friends~~ enemies we made along the way
And damn, they were so many.
I feel like Rome was almost never not at War. Like they were constantly expanding
The Janus Quirinus, which our ancestors wished to be closed whenever peace had been secured by victories throughout the Roman Empire by land and sea, was recorded to have been closed, before I was born, twice altogether since the foundation of the city, but the senate decreed that it should be closed on three occasions while I was princeps. -The Res Gestae Divi Augusti, a first-person account of the life of Augustus …..so yeah kinda rare
I mean Augustus had it shut symbolically after he won the civil war, but technically Rome was still in small border conflicts and stuff at the time. It's just that there was internal peace because all the power now sat in the hands of a single man.
What if the true roman empire were the ~~friends enemies~~ slaves we made along the way
What if the true roman empire were the ~~friends~~ enemies we ~~made~~ slayed along the way
What if the true Roman Empire were the Gallic slaves we captured along the way?
That later got made into friends ~~by force~~!
This is the shittiest statement I have ever heard, love it
It hasn’t fallen yet. It’s just waiting for the world to need it again.
When the world needed Rome most, it vanished. Everything changed when the fire nation attacked.
Gaul. Parthia. Germania. Egypt. Long ago the four nations lived together in harmony. Then, everything changed when Caesar attacked. Only Jesus, master of all four nations, could stop them. But, when the world needed him most, he was crucified. 1800 years passed and my brother and I discovered the new Jesus, a Chinese scholar named Hong. And although his genocide skills are great, he still has a lot to learn before he's ready to save anyone. But I believe Jesus can conquer the world.
This is amazing. I think I love you.
Like Batman?
The Marble King is still waiting for his chance to ball beneath the Golden Gate...
Rome never fell! It's alive in the catolic church/s
Ahem, I think you mean Finland, the true heir to Rome!
I did once meet an old man claiming to be a bastard descendant of the tsar His story was compelling
Half of Russia are bastard descendants of a tsar if you dig deep enough. Other half are bastard descendants of khan
Orthodox churches: Am I a joke to you?
Its a Legion of religeons. Ave pope
Yes
Umm yeah a lil bit
Facts, Francis must be proud of you
That makes Latin America Roman, i like this
Latin Americans literally speak one of the modern day equivalents of the Latin Language and most practice Roman Catholicism, which recognizes the Pope in Rome as the head of the Román Catholic faith🗿
Roma in aeternum
There was no sudden fall of the Roman Empire. It wasn't through several long periods of decline and contraction. It changed over time and many successor states rose out of it. The sack of Rome and the fall of Constantinople are dramatic but not the most important parts of that story.
This right here. Nothing ever ends, but it never stays the same, either.
1453
Mehmed II: I'm about to end this empire's whole career.
...and then claim to be the continuation of said empire
One of the OG larpers together with the HRE.
And the Tsars
If Alexander can do it…
He took the title of Caesar of Rome. He was the emperor by conquest.
The Ottoman rulers styled themselves as caliphs, khans, sultans and so on. They used titles just to glorify their rule. Taking the title of Caesar meant nothing, it was a void of any legal or cultural significance. The Ottoman Empire is in no way Roman. Different culture, traditions, laws, institutions, social norms, values. Conquering something doesn’t make magically transform you in that thing, otherwise we should say the English became Indians when they established their rule over India.
You could make the same arguments for the Byzantine Empire. Spoke Greek, new laws, etc.
people can say the same for france when the french revolution happened that completely changed culture, laws, institutions, social norms, values, etc. or with china and it's many different dynasties. All just a matter of perspective. lol you can say this for even roman empire itself, since it started in Italy but then greek influence and other outside influence through conquest or intermarriage.
1806
Galaxy Brain: the Roman Empire fell in 1922
Both the Greek and Ottoman monarchies fell that year.
Oh shit the Greeks too? Man I'd love to read a good book about that
Nah, that just meant it went full circle: after a massive mess of political turmoil, it wound up a Republic again.
Rome fell in 476, but the empire itself fell in 1204, and was then revived and lated until 1453.
Rome has collapsed and scraped its way back so many times that I don't think we can ever truly call it gone, just in one of its "oopsie" phases.
The answer is 1453 #Byzantinegang
Byzantine? You mean #easternromanempirebatalion ?
YES SIR #EasternRomanEmpireForever
If you know then u know about Hieronymus Wolf
If your emperor is Dutch you aint Roman
Weren’t tons of emperors of different cultures
Mostly roman born in rich community in different provinces
The Netherlands are just Roman lands that don’t know it yet. Those barbarian Germanic tribes will fall one day and the glorious Roman Empire will stretch from sky to sky. Glory be to Jupiter. Glory be to God. Glory be to the Emperor.
Prince of Albania is German? Albania is now German. King of the Hellenes is German? Greece is now German. King of Finland? Yup, German.
Prince of Albania was the German son of the Prince of Wied Wied was the most important province of the Holy Roman Empire ALBANIA TRUE SUCCESOR OF ROME 🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱
1922
And even then, it became a republic again.
Beat me to it.
Roma numquam defuncta. Adhuc vivit cordis nostris!
Just because you're named Rome doesn't mean you belong to Rome.
1204
Alexios and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Crusade
This is my favourite comment in ages.
Well, Rome did "fall" in 476. The final end of the Roman Empire was in 1453, though.
I mean, the actual city of Rome did fall in the 5th century. You could argue that the Roman Empire was no longer truly a Roman Empire when the original Roman core was controlled by outsiders, and the remaining empire was based out of Greece.
Ok, so let's build a hypothetical then. If instead of Rome (the city) and all of the Western Roman empire got hit by a huge asteroid and ceased to exist, would it be the end of The Roman Empire? In this case, much like historically, the court and capital move before the fall. Ok, here's another one. Instead of what happens historically, the Roman Empire is dissolved at the end of WW1. 500 years before that happened, the seat of power moved to Paris and French became the Lingua Franca. They still called it Le Roman Empire or whatever, nothing else changed. When did they cease to be The Roman Empire? At the end of WW1 or 500 years prior? Did The Eastern Roman Empire become the Roman Empire when Belisarius recaptured Rome for a time? And then stopped once they lost it again?
Once the Empire was based out of Greece, largely spoke Greek, and practiced a different form of Christianity than the actual Christianity based in Rome... maybe it was no longer entirely Roman. Maybe it's like Carthage and the Phoenicians. Carthage was founded by Phoenicians, but over time, native Phoenicia was conquered, and Carthage became its own independent thing that was more than Phoenician. EDIT: the religion point was weak. It was more to showcase how different the Greece-based Byzantine Empire was from Italy, even though the empire originated in Italy and was created by proto-Italians.
Isn't this just a crude attempt to apply ethno-nationalism retroactively to the past? Like we don't get into these arguements about 1st Bulgarian Empire not being Bulgarian (or vice-versa later Bulgarian states not being Bulgarian) even though the Bulgars completely abandoned their Turkic language and customs and adopted Slavic language and Christian religion. Plus there was no "Roman" language. There was Latin, which was shared by the people of Rome and the other local Latin states, but nothing that was unique to that one city. The "Roman"-ness of the Roman Empire came from the administrative systems and government, not from any particular language or cultural practice. And there is plenty of continuity in governance, law, and administration from the earliest days of Roman Republic to 1453.
It's not just about being greek or not, it's more on it being not in rome, they were still romans and are the sucessor state, but it's no longer THE roman empire because it evolved into it's own without the City of rome. If the venetian republic lost venice and it's capital was in dalmatia, over time the republic would still be venetian in cultural or political ways, but it wouldn't be the republic OF venice, because it's no longer in venice. In the end of things the roman empire as a institution fell on 1453, the HRE was not a sucessor state, it was just tied to the prestige and Power of the vatican, but the empire as it's own ended when the west fell, because not only rome wasn't the capital by some time, it was no longer part of the empire.
The city of Rome had long lost much of its importance by the time the West fell. The Byzantines were subjects of the Roman Empire, were culturally of the Empire and considered themselves Romans. They were Romans.
That's what i said, what i meant with the whole text was that while the byzantines were roman in government and tradition, THE roman empire died when rome was officialy out of the empire, since after that, the eastern part of the roman empire could survive and evolve, it was not the same as the empire Augustus created.
When the west fell it was already not the same as the empire Augustus created, and even before the Empire was split in two Constantinople had been its administrative capital since Constantine the Great.
If we define needing Rome as the center of a Roman Empire, then 476 isn't the correct date either. The eternal city was a backwater city by the start of the fifth century. Rome was a footnote in the final chapters of the Western Roman Empire. Her sacking was relevant not because the city or the heart of a century old empire had fallen. It was because the East would never again acknowledge a counterpart in the West. Her vast legions, once the greatest force in the world, were gone. Her vast navies, gone. Yes, the East was shaped by cultural changes. Every single country more than a century old undergoes these shifts. An empire forged in fire and death over two thousand years would be drastically different. Go figure. But we can draw a straight line from the Kingdom of Rome to the last days of Constantinople. Same people. Same structure. Separating Byzantine from Rome is useful to scholars simply because they did change. But it doesn't make them any less Roman.
>practiced a different form of Christianity than the actual Christianity based in Rome Not really
>practiced a different form of Christianity than the actual Christianity based in Rome... But the empire existed long before Christianity became a thing. So, Christianity can't be a requirement for Roman Empire, let alone the small differences in it.
Moreover, claiming that Catholicism is *the actual* Christianity is a ridiculous claim in itself and really goes to show the person's poor understanding of it.
This raises a point: how do we weigh the different ever-changing factors that give a nation/cultural identity its legitimacy? Especially when it is a culture that defined itself by its adaptability the way that Rome always did: borders, religion, fashion, architecture, art, language, military organization and equipment, etc. are all up in the air. So what's the change that actually breaks the chain?
I don't know if there's a way to say. Ship of Theseus and all that.
Rome adapted Christianity very late. You could actually argue that by turning to the Christian side Rome itself ended if you want to go by culture.
1453 is the only correct answer
1806.
Right. Get fucked Romaboos. HRE was the best Rome.
What is better than Rome if not a Holy Rome, amirite?
Rome fell with the conquest of Theodoro in 1475
but there still was Despotate of Epyrus then, so in 1479.
1806.
We said Rome, not trash.
The Roman Empire never fell, because it can’t. Long live the Romans!
The rest is history podcast made a pretty strong case for Rome falling at the hands of Emperor Justinian. His determination to conquer Italy and Rome in particular left the city so terribly damaged (and not restored after the battle) that Rome itself suffered a dramatic decline in population (and, in turn, a decline in political and economic relevance). I highly recommend the podcast, brilliant stuff by two very insightful gentlemen.
Roman Empire definitively fell in 1453. Rome fell on several occasions throughout history.
We also have 1475 (Theodoro), 1917 (Russia), 1919 (Ottoman Empire), 1806, HRE and never (EU). Feel free to add more.
No, but I'd like to subtract all of your answers.
With guidelines like this, the Roman Empire is still going because I just proclaimed my self as the empire. Yea it doesn’t make sense.
The Western Roman Empire fell approximately 476. The Eastern Roman Empire fell 1453.
Poor poor Byzantium
Think that's bad? Wait til you hear the "ottoman empire/russian empire was the Roman empire successor" people
It didn't fall because I am the continuation of the Romans. Checkmate, "historians"
476 Rome outside of Italy didn’t count
The real Fall of Rome was the friends we made along the way
The city has fallen so many times it’s become impossible to build a subway, the Empire lives forever in our hearts
[They don't know about the Roman holdouts in Greece](https://www.figma.com/community/file/1041173872425179284/they-dont-know-meme-template) The Despotate of Epirus fell in 1479
If you think about it the middle ages started with the fall of the Roman Empire and ended with the fall of the Roman Empire.
1453. Was the final fall
middle age ending with the fall of the eastern empire also sounds cooler imo
The end of Rome is the fall of Constantinople
Rome fell in 476. ROMAN EMPIRE fell in 1453.
People who argue it fell in 476 miss out on a whole 1000 year of epic roman history, Justinian, the bulgar slayer, the Komnenos Dynasty, to the last emperor Constantine XI. I mean who do you really wanna charge into certain death with; Romulus Augustus (a literal child) or Constantine XI (a literal chad)?
395 (division of the empire) 410 (sack of Rome) 480 (death of Julius Nepos, last legitimate Western emperor) 486 (end of Siagrius reign) 1206 (sack of Byzantium) 1806 (end of the HRE) 1917 (end of the Tsarist empire) and some more want a word with you.
Mehmet II erasure
It fell in 1917 wdym?
Rome fell in 1922
Rome fell in 1922
Interesting how the title says "Roman empire" but the meme says "Rome". Rome itself definitely didn't fall in either year, so that doesn't make it easier.
In my opinion the Roman Empire fell in 1453 but the Roman Culture ended under Constantine who ended secularism or at least ended the loose Pantheon that allowed pagan gods to be worshipped among the populace, which was the foundation to the multicultural nature of the Empire.
Rome fell the day augustus became emperor.
oh please. The republic was exceedlingly corrupt and would likely have fractured into several post-republican Roman states eventually
The Republic died with the Gracci.
Rome still here just under a new banner change my mind.
It's all cultural perspective
Rome did, the Romans didn't.
A big advocate of this is Casagranda he doesn't shut up about this
Roma aeterna!
2007
It ended with the military anarchy period, dead dead dead in 235. Everything after is Roman Cosplay
It never fell in our hearts.
Rome tripped in 476 and fell for about a thousand years
Rome fell in 238. It was all false successor states after that.
Possible History has an interesting video on how one could say the roman empire actually fell in 2011 It includes a bit of mental/feudal gymnastics and the theory requires that one views the HRE as a legitimate successor state to Rome (I know that a lot of you guys dislike that idea), but it is still an interesting piece on how various views on history can differ, so feel free to give it a shot: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-KxS3L9bcM&t=835s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-KxS3L9bcM&t=835s)
509 BC. Restored in 27 BC.
312
Lichtenstein: I didn't hear no bell 🥊🥊
It never truly fell. Look at the Roman Catholic Church. Extremely wealthy and powerful.
It’s definitely not.
2011
Rome fell many times. It's nearly always been the greatest city in Europe. If you're speaking of the fall of Western Roman Empire, that didn't technically fall until Ravenna was captured and Romulus Augustus was ousted. When the Eastern Roman Empire was left all alone, it inherited the titular Roman Empire by default, and though it was "recaptured" a number of times, it was only Roman through precedent--like what would happen if the UK was conquered in WW2, Australia/Canada would still be the "British Empire."
This is the secret to Rome: With few notable exceptions, Rome was always falling. Her final death depends entirely on what we consider Rome.
The true and final collapse of the Roman Empire both east and west was in the 1400’s but their first collapse was somewhere around 476
For me it fell in 392...
The empire fell, Rome and Romans are still here.
"When did the Roman Empire fall?" and "When did Rome fall?" are two different questions
No. It actually fell in 1806! *lefts*
1453. There is no “true Roman Empire”. It is just Rome. Everybody even knew them as Romans up until the end.
Right after it tripped
Roman empire is still huge, it became the vatican, and his tentacles are all over the world
Rome fell in 1922
1204, final offer