When did the Roman empire cease to be? In YOUR opinion...

[mrtwisties]

True, and they're both red.

If you got to pick the colour used to represent your empire, it'd be hard to go past "lucky red".

[Long lost Caesar]

True, and they're both red.

good god hes right! and im british-italian...something spooky there

[HFox]

It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames.

[Long lost Caesar]

apart from informing us how ants can be blown to pieces...did that have any significance?

[Emperor Burakuku]

It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames.

Man that was really funny.

[americancaesar]

Death of Marcus Aurelius. Even if the Empire in the West had survived the invasions, it would have continued in a state of internal struggle between generals trying to seize the purple every other decade.

[AymericNikator]

I will say that the "political" Rome ends after the treaty of Verdun, in 843 P.C.N; the "classical" in 31 A.C.N
And the influence of the roman state after the WW2

[MiniMe]

(posting here, cause that tread already dead)

No, the Byzantines were a mishmash culture of Middle Eastern, Greek, and Roman influence. They are not Roman because:
...
3. Were Greek Orthodox instead of Catholic (later periods)

Dear Intranetusa, without any intent to offend you I'd like to point that you were using a wrong argument.
Catholic Rome is even less likely to be named successor to the Ancient Roman Empire than Byzantines.
BTW, Greek Orthodox-Catholic nature of relations was pretty much like Catholic-Protestant connection and not vice-versa. Roman patriarch was just one of the five (Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Roma) back in the good old days before he claimed himself to be the one and only.

My opinion about Byzantines (perhaps, stated in a slightly irritating overenthusiastic manner):
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83097

[Maksimus]

I would say the Roman Empire died with the death of Commodus. Marcus Aurelius was the last true Emperor and Commodus killed the Empire. It just never recovered after him.

So true... I adore him... to bad that his death concluded the end of Pax Romana...

[Intranetusa]

(posting here, cause that tread already dead)

Dear Intranetusa, without any intent to offend you I'd like to point that you were using a wrong argument.
Catholic Rome is even less likely to be named successor to the Ancient Roman Empire than Byzantines.
BTW, Greek Orthodox-Catholic nature of relations was pretty much like Catholic-Protestant connection and not vice-versa. Roman patriarch was just one of the five (Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Roma) back in the good old days before he claimed himself to be the one and only.

My opinion about Byzantines (perhaps, stated in a slightly irritating overenthusiastic manner):
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83097

Dear Minime, no offense intended, but if you had finished reading the topic, you would've seen that that specific statement had already been addressed.

[MiniMe]

So true...
Mea culpa

[Intranetusa]

So true...
Mea culpa

No problem. :D

This topic is still fairly debatable so it's pretty much up for grabs.

[Reno Melitensis]

Well every one said his views, and I agreed with most. The downfall of the Roman Empire began with Commodus, and he was a very popular emperor especially with the military, in fact the Pretorians killed his asassins. After his death there was chaos, an almost hundred years of civil war that continued to weaken the empire. Dioclesianus did try to move towards the wright path, but after he abdicated civil war returned. As a christian, I thing that christianity was not to blame, Constantine simply used the growing religion for his political ambitions , he needed the support of a mayor group in the empire, and after much suffering they wanted revenge, not so christian at all At that time christianity was a growing religion, and even after the prosecutions of Dioclesianus and Maxentius they did not give in, their numbers increased.The final nail in the coffen was when Theodosius the Great divided the empire between Honorius and Zeno. The weaker western part could not withstand the pressure on the Rhine. To add salt to the wound, at that time Stilicho the Vandal, Magister Militum of the west was also fighting Alaric the Visighot for his own personal gain. What was behind the fight betwenn these two man we shall never know, but when Stilicho was murdered Alaric was unopposed in the west, the military machine of the west collapsed, Honorius was too weak to react, and there was no way that Zeno could help his brother, the fall of the limes on the Rhine simply did not affect the Eastern part. The struggle between Stilicho and Alaric was a civil war between two barbarians that faught for power within the empire, Alaric had won, he would had himself crowned emperor, instead he sacked Rome and tied. The fall of Constantinople to the turks is in my opinion the true end of the Roman Empire.

And whats wrong with ' YOU SHALL NOT KILL', is there someone out there who is ready to die for the greed and ambitions of others. If people of all races and religions decided to put those words in practice, we would be living in a much better society than we are.

Cheers.

[russia almighty]

Hey dude don't worry I agree . I'm an atheist and I find the people who said Christianity causing the fall of the Empire laughable . Notice the Eastern Half lasted till 1453 and if you want to get technical 1918 and if you REALLY want to get technical the Roman blood is still around (aren't there some surviving Romanov's ?)

[Gazius]

I find the notion interesting about what sort of influence 'Rome' had even after 1453, and if you accept the notion that the last heirs of Rome died in the Russian Revolution, the legacy of Rome has lasted for close to 3000 years.

[Dayve]

If people of all races and religions decided to put those words in practice, we would be living in a much better society than we are.

That i would absolutely have to disagree with. Europe was ruled by Christianity for a thousand years, there was nothing but war, suppression, murder and suffering. Thou shalt not kill applies only to certain people. It seemed to be perfectly alright for a Christian following the "Thou shalt not kill" rule to massacre untold millions of muslims and take their daughters as sex slaves.

I think Christianity was the begginning of the end for the Roman empire, the final end being when the last emperor was deposed. After that there were just successor kingdoms claiming to be the true continuors of the Roman legacy, the main successor kingdom being the Byzantine empire. Without Rome, there was no Roman empire. Rome was the city where it all started, the city with the Roman people and the senate. Once Rome had been sacked like 3 times in a century and the last emperor had been deposed, that was that. Rome no longer existed, only successor kingdoms.

[Hax]

I have to second Dayve.

Religion itself isn't a thing that will pave the way for mordure, torture, rape, etc.

At the moment it starts being organized religion, it's going the wrong way. It is a way of domination of one's mind.

[Pharnakes]

This is why paganism is the best religon, and is the oldest. Thought I'm an aethisist, not a paganist.

[The General]

Either in 1204 or 1453.

Although the western half had started disintegrating already earlier the Eastern Roman Empire, or, later, "Byzantine Empire" (I time the change the early 700s when they adopted Greek as official language etc) was the eastern half of Rome, and not a "successor state".

The roman rule did not break there, until perhaps 1204 when Constantinople was captured temporarily which lead to the breakdown of the empire into three successor states.

Also, the "Greeks" called themselves Romaioi, their country Romania, and the germanic states during medieval times referred to the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire as "emperor", as opposed to "king" (which was the title they used for their position, and sometimes were granted by the emperor).

And, the claim that Eastern Roman Empire was a "successor state" because it didn't control Rome is silly. They did conquer Rome back, but, simply, Rome wasn't just worthy to be an imperial capital anymore. Constantinople was by far more powerful, richer and populous, all-in-all, "imperial" (hell, the capital was moved to Constantinople/New Rome already earlier because the city of Rome and the western half had started declining even before 476, far earlier...).

[Intranetusa]

I have to second Dayve.

Religion itself isn't a thing that will pave the way for mordure, torture, rape, etc.

At the moment it starts being organized religion, it's going the wrong way. It is a way of domination of one's mind.

All religions are not created equal. The problem with the three Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is that their holy text contains a diety that in some cases encourages violence and has a history that is bathed in blood. They've still got a long way to go (especially Islam).

[cmacq]

Well, it's good to see that although the 'Empire' is dead, the Propaganda of empire still lives, and lives quite well, I may add. Long live the Propaganda, and those that create it.

In archaeology there is a dirty word that is often used; its 'normitive.'

Deconstruct people, deconstruct.

[Emperor Burakuku]

I have to second Dayve.

Religion itself isn't a thing that will pave the way for mordure, torture, rape, etc.

At the moment it starts being organized religion, it's going the wrong way. It is a way of domination of one's mind.

Maybe this is forced but here I go. A sword can be used to kill right? But it can also be part of a great collection. It depends on the owner. Is that simple.

[L.C.Cinna]

Well every one said his views, and I agreed with most. The downfall of the Roman Empire began with Commodus, and he was a very popular emperor especially with the military, in fact the Pretorians killed his asassins. After his death there was chaos, an almost hundred years of civil war that continued to weaken the empire.

no there wasn't. Septimius Severus was one of the most able emperors of all, actually the Severan period was very stable. and the 3rd century was not as "dark" as it has been painted in the 19th century.

Constantine simply used the growing religion for his political ambitions , he needed the support of a mayor group in the empire,

I wouldn't call 10% a majority....

[russia almighty]

Cinna I get this vibe that by then Christians had extremely rich patrons that could provide Constantine with mad capital .

[phoenixemperor]

After the death of Attilla and the rapid collapse of the Hunnic Empire. After then, the WRE finally lost the ability to play one "barbarian" group off against another. For example, how Aetius used Hunnic mercenaries to deal with the Visigoths in the 430s, and then how Aetius used the Visigoths to help deal with the Huns in 451

[russia almighty]

Hey does the term Terranitup ring a bell?

[phoenixemperor]

You mean the arrogant college kid doing an Arts Degree, who thinks he knows everything and that anyone that doesn't support his socialist drivel, is a neo con surburbanite?

[russia almighty]

Damn the world is getting smaller. Your the 4th person from gfaqs I've ran into on here .

[Senatus Populusque Romanus]

I think it ended with Caesar, whih means when the republic fell.

In my opinion, Rome was built to be republic, not an empire. And Caesar wanted to change that too rapidly.

[cmacq]

I think it ended with Caesar, whih means when the republic fell.

In my opinion, Rome was built to be republic, not an empire. And Caesar wanted to change that too rapidly.

Which Caesar?

There's a world of Caesars? Strange, a story about an all powerful empire made long, long ago, in a place far, far away, conceived for empire builders far more recent and near at hand? Is it the Imperium Romanum (ancient Latin term for Roman legal authority) or the Roman Empire (a modern abstract construct)?

This is just an outline, so bare with me, please. The Mos Maiorum was the unwritten Roman constitution or the design of Roman legal authority. While flexible the one base principle of the Mos Maiorum was simply 'Cum potestas in populo auctoritas in senatu sit;' or 'with power in the people, authority rests in the Senate.' This was embodied in three governmental branches; the senate, the legislative (assemblies and consols), and the executive (magistrates). However, all authority stemmed from the senate with its Senatus Consultum checks on the other branches.

Augustus claimed the Auctoritas as Princeps (or Princeps Senatus/Princeps Civitatis; first senator/first citizen or president). I belive the Princeps was an absorption of the Princeps Senatus office. As a legal term, Auctoritas applied to the Senate's authority, or Auctoritas Patrum (authority of elders). This form of legal authority was considered superior to that of Potestas or Imperium powers.

By the time of his death Augustus had assumed all the powers of the Auctorictas Principis (supreme authority), the Imperium, and the Potestas. This included all military, judiciary and administrative legal powers of the Roman state. The senate may have retained the offices of Consul Praetor Urbanus, Consul, and Proconsul, however these functioned not as instruments of legal Roman authority. Rather, they served as lieutenants of the Princeps. This was a direct assault on the Mos Maiorum.

So my point is...

the acts of Augustus didn't just end the Republic, it ended the legal authority of the Roman state as inferred by their constitution. I propose that what followed was no more than a felonious apparition that was later glorified by emerging nation states to somehow justify their own somewhat dubious machinations.

I know its a Stretch, but what the hell, in for a dime? Hell, sometimes I'm not even sure if I believe what I'm saying...

...until I'm done talking?