44

The Roman Empire divided itself into two parts, the Eastern Roman Empire headquartered in Constantinople and the Western Roman Empire headquartered in Rome. The city of Rome itself fell in the year 476 AD. But the Eastern Roman Empire continued on, with the city of Constantinople falling in the year 1453 AD.

Now modern historians consider 476 to be the “fall of the Roman Empire”, and they have termed the Eastern Roman Empire as it existed in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages as the “Byzantine Empire”. But my question is, at what point did people at the time think the Roman Empire had actually fallen? Was it 1453?

Keshav Srinivasan
  • 2,579
  • 2
  • 18
  • 32
  • 22
    I think this would depend on where in Europe the particular person was. Their perspective would be limited by the information that was available to them. – Steve Bird Jul 11 '19 at 05:29
  • 9
    The question might be too broad. Things are somewhat clearcut in the East with fall of Constantinople. (The last remnants got mopped upon 1460.) It's a lot murkier in the West. Depending on who you asked, it could be quite a while after the fall of Rome before it dawned on contemporaries that a new reality had set in. Even with barbarians moving in and settling, continuity in many aspects of life, rather than disruptive changes, characterized the collapse of the Western Empire. – Denis de Bernardy Jul 11 '19 at 08:40
  • 14
    What we call the Byzantine Empire was known at the time as the Roman Empire to its citizens, according to Wikipedia. Other people may have had a different opinion, e.g. the Holy Roman Empire in the west thought themselves a continuation of Rome, and so it seems did others in Italy (even Mussolini claimed continuity with the Roman Empire sometimes). So as people say, it depends on which contemporary you ask (and when in time, because we're talking a very long time). Maybe narrow the question down in time/location? – Stuart F Jul 11 '19 at 11:13
  • 8
    What contemporaries do you refer to? People in 476 or people in 1453? The former would not have realised the Roman Empire had fallen in the west until several generations later; the latter would have known definitively that the Roman Empire had been extinguished in the East also. I feel that as phrased your question somewhat comes down to whether people thought the Eastern Empire was truly a continuation of the Roman Empire, which is a matter of perspective. – Semaphore Jul 11 '19 at 12:51
  • 5
    Depending on where you are, you could make a good case for the Roman Empire having fallen on October 30, 1918 or November 1, 1922. – Mark Jul 11 '19 at 19:26
  • One could argue that the Roman Empire is still alive and well, or, at least, keeps running our world from the grave. ;-) – sds Jul 11 '19 at 20:38
  • 1
    @Mark Some people might also make a case for August 6, 1806, but I tend to think May 29, 1453 is the only date that a broad range of people could agree on. – C Monsour Jul 11 '19 at 23:35
  • @Mark And some people in Russia might make a case for March 17, 1917. – C Monsour Jul 12 '19 at 01:29
  • @Mark I do not count the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the German Empire, or the Austrian Empire as any sort of continuation of the Roman Empire. See my answer. – MAGolding Jul 12 '19 at 18:01
  • @MAGolding Well, the German, French, and Austrian Empires didn't see themselves that way, so no problem. But the Holy Roman, Russian, and Ottoman Empires did think of themselves as continuations of Rome, so, though I tend to agree with your perspective, it's a touchy subject. I am unsure why you are mentioning churches, which no one here seems to have confused with empires. – C Monsour Jul 13 '19 at 18:33

2 Answers2

89

Most people at the time did not think the Roman Empire had fallen -- it's only from five hundred or a thousand years later that we can conclude that it did. Both points of view are reasonable.

What happened around 476 is that the Western part of the Roman Empire was lost to central control. This was not the first time it had happened -- consider the Gallic Empire of the late 200s. We can look back and say that this time there was no returning, but people at the time were not thus privileged.

Furthermore, the institutions of the Empire did not all fall together. Some of them had been growing increasingly ragged for a couple of centuries. Some of them (e.g. local administrative practices) had changed repeatedly over the course of the centuries as warlords replaced proconsuls -- what is the real difference between a chunk of Gaul being run by a Romanized German with an Imperial Army title and a Romanized German calling himself King? It had happened before, so what's new this time? 'Sure our local boss is a minor warlord -- has been from before my grandfather's time, at least. This German guy is better than that thieving lordling from down the Rhone valley, anyway.'

And while the city of Rome was sacked, so what? It hadn't been the actual ruling capital for a couple of hundred years -- the western part of the Empire had been ruled from places like Milan and Trier and Ravenna. 'Sure it's a great old city -- a shame that it was attacked -- but what does it really matter? It's still there, isn't it? Yeah, it's a lot smaller now, but it's been shrinking for hundreds of years.'

'Anyway, what do you mean that the Roman Empire fell? Its western territories are temporarily lost -- again -- but I hear that the Emperor in Constantinople -- the New Rome -- is sending Bellisarius with an army to reconquer Italy.' (And he did. It didn't stay conquered of course, but who could know that at the time?)

'And what's this Byzantine Empire you speak of? Did the Parthians finally beat back Rome or something? The only Empire I know of is Roman!' It's only looking back that we see that the eastern half of the Roman Empire eventually and gradually became a Greek-speaking empire clearly different from the classical empire -- in 500 AD its language of administration was Latin, and its everyday speech had never been anything but Greek. We can see the seeds of a later empire that looks very non-Roman; contemporaries? Not so much.

Finally, from the 200s on (and probably earlier) people whose outlook in life was tilted towards half-empty glasses wrote of the imminent (or maybe past) collapse of Empire. 'Yawn. Another over-educated parasite saying that the Empire is dead. Boring! I'm a practical man and as long as I have to pay taxes, the Empire is not dead."

Looking back, we can see that somewhere around 500 AD the Roman Empire in the West passed a point of no return, but people living at the time could not skip ahead to the end of the book to see that.

Mark Olson
  • 7,725
  • 2
  • 23
  • 32
  • 11
    It's probably worth noting that the Senate was still in Rome (though then it is equally worth noting why that doesn't really mean anything). (I don't recall when the Senate finally gave up the ghost even in name, mid 600s?) – chepner Jul 11 '19 at 13:52
  • 2
    And what about the Roman Empire in the East? When did people realize that that Empire was finally gone for good? – Keshav Srinivasan Jul 11 '19 at 15:06
  • 1
    @chepner There was also a Senate in Constantinople starting in the 4th century and that one survived until about 1200. – C Monsour Jul 11 '19 at 18:43
  • @CMonsour Forgot about that; I should have said a Senate. – chepner Jul 11 '19 at 18:50
  • 17
    @KeshavSrinivasan, depends on who you ask. After he took Constantinople, Mehmed II considered himself Roman Emperor by right of conquest, and the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized his claim. The Ottoman Sultans continued to use the title Kayser-i Rum until the abolition of the Sultanate in 1922. – Mark Jul 11 '19 at 19:47
  • 6
  • 1 for both content and style
    • –  Jul 11 '19 at 20:46
  • Maybe even worth mentioning the german emperors who were considered Holy Roman Emperors – Mario Trucco Jul 12 '19 at 14:18
  • 2
    @Mark Yes the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized the Ottoman Sultan as the "Byzantine" emperor. The Sultans appointed and deposed the Patriarchs for over 400 years. If the Sultans took the title seriously they would have changed the name of their realm to the Roman Empire and used only one title, Roman Emperor. Since they didn't take the title seriously enough to do so, there is no need for us to take it seriously enough to discuss how accurate it may have been. – MAGolding Jul 12 '19 at 17:35
  • 8
    @MAGolding How is having other names and titles not taking it seriously? Did the Emperor of Austria not take his title seriously by also calling himself King of Jerusalem? – sgf Jul 12 '19 at 19:23
  • 2
    @MAGolding They did call their dominion "Rum", did they not? – C Monsour Jul 13 '19 at 17:04