real fall of rome?

[pawpaw]

so what was the general crowned? did he kinda throw out the roman crown and creat a new on for a new kingdom? and then when did the goths*i think it was them* take italy?? and what parts of the old empire held out against conquest and whear ruled by roman citizans, or desendands of roman citicanzs? *like parts of briton, and gaul?*

Odoacer ruled Italy "for" Constantinople but gradually did what he felt like.

The Goths were sent to Italy by Constantinople in 489 ( they were at odds and this killed 2 problems with 1 stone )

Syagrius "ruled" northern Gaul in Romes name till 486

 

[Vietcong]

so italy was kinda of roage state of thea eastren empire? and the east decited to send the goths to take this guy out.. but then once thay did, thay took it for them selfs?

was thear any other parts that whear heald onto by "romans or roman decendants" after 486?

 

[pawpaw]

was thear any other parts that whear heald onto by "romans or roman decendants" after 486?

England was considered a " Romo " sucessor state

 

[sydhe]

There was also an Emperor at Trebizond until 1461, and one in Dalmatia (Julian Nepos) until 480.

 

[Mott1]

It's also important to remember that even when the empire crumbled, life did not necessarily change very much for most people. For example, life in Gaul in the sixth century was not so different from the fifth. Under Clovis, chariot races were held, Roman roads and buildings remained in use, and plenty of bad Latin poetry was written. In Italy, of course, Theodoric the Ostrogoth sought to create a new civilisation combining the best of the joint Roman and barbarian heritage. Most striking was the situation in Spain, where the Visigoths basically took over the existing physical, social, and legal infrastructure with barely a hiccup. This lasted until the Muslim invasions.

So it seems that you agree with the Pirenne thesis. Henri Pirenne states that the dividing line between the Roman and Medieval period came not with the Germanic invasion but with the Muslim conquest. He suggests that decline of the empire came with the loss of control over the waterways of the Mediterrainian which it was heavily dependent on for trade.

 

[Vietcong]

England was considered a " Romo " sucessor state

it cant be, englend all of the romano british states fell to the saxons and angels.

 

[Vietcong]

after reading a bit the beast date for the fall of the weastren empire seems to me be somtime between 480 and 496..

 

[jonatas]

So it seems that you agree with the Pirenne thesis. Henri Pirenne states that the dividing line between the Roman and Medieval period came not with the Germanic invasion but with the Muslim conquest. He suggests that decline of the empire came with the loss of control over the waterways of the Mediterrainian which it was heavily dependent on for trade.

The problem is that Iberia was already in serious decline under Visigothic administration before 711. Not to mention this administration retained some strong Germanic (un-Roman) characteristics and basically collapsed like a house of cards when Arabs/Berbers set foot in Iberia. Sounds like the stage was already set to me....

Also I don't like putting the typical and automatic emphasis on clash of Christian/Islamic civilizations. We already had a similar discussion about Charlemagne's importance... without any initial mention of the corresponding massive Berber rebellions against Arabs in the Maghreb during the same era (kind of surprising and disappointing).

 

[Plotinus]

So it seems that you agree with the Pirenne thesis. Henri Pirenne states that the dividing line between the Roman and Medieval period came not with the Germanic invasion but with the Muslim conquest. He suggests that decline of the empire came with the loss of control over the waterways of the Mediterrainian which it was heavily dependent on for trade.

I didn't say that. The fact that there wasn't a clear dividing line in (say) the last quarter of the fifth century does not entail that there was a clear dividing line at some later point, whether at the time of the Muslim conquests or not. Personally, I think it's usually a mistake to look for clear dividing lines of this nature. They tend to be applied retrospectively and not noticed by people actually living at the time. I don't know about Pirenne's work, but it sounds too simplistic to me. Obviously the Muslim conquests affected Europe in all kinds of important ways. However, I don't think that the end of the Roman empire was one of these effects. Surely the Roman empire had certainly ceased to exist in any meaningful sense in the west a long time before the Muslims ever got there.

My point is that this was a gradual process, in part because it involved so many factors: not just political but social, cultural, religious, economic, military, and others. These different factors all changed, but not all at the same rate or at the same time. So, for example, it's not too hard to pinpoint years when the political framework of the empire ceased to exist or when armies were withdrawn from certain areas. But social change might have come only later. Again, the major religious change that we associate with the shift from the empire to the Middle Ages - the rise and "officialising" of Christianity - occured before the political and military events that we associate with the end of the empire. This is why there can be no definitive answer to the question, "When did the Roman empire end?" To find such an answer you'd have to define "the Roman empire" first, and that might be harder than you think.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

I don't know if 1453 could be considered the final fall of Rome since the Byzantines were Greeks that had borrowed some of Rome's cultrue.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

There was also an Emperor at Trebizond until 1461,

yes, but like the Byzantines, Trabzond was Greek.

 

[magritte]

Hasn't anyone here read Valis (Philip K. Dick)?

The Empire never ended.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

Ok. Which European nation today is an empire?

 

[magritte]

The modern European countries are all illusion. Real time ceased in 70 C.E. with the fall of the temple of Jerusalem.

 

[silver 2039]

yes, but like the Byzantines, Trabzond was Greek.

Roman culture was basically a reflection of Greek culture. There was little diffrence.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I believe a major step in the defeat of the Roman Empire was with the defeat of the last predominantly Roman Army (even though it technically was Byzantine) at Adrianople in 378 AD at the hands of Fritigern and the Terivingians (Tribe within the Visigoths).

"Desires Peace" my a$$.

Spoiler :

Which is what I believe Fritigern translates to.

And they were technically done when the Roman legions lost the aura of invulnerability they had in Gaius Julius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompeius' time.

They were still a very powerful foe to be reckoned with, but they were no longer viewed as indestructible.

But still, as was stated numerous times in the first fews posts: Empires are neither created, nor destroyed in a day.

 

[Tathlum]

And they were technically done when the Roman legions lost the aura of invulnerability they had in Gaius Julius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompeius' time.

They were still a very powerful foe to be reckoned with, but they were no longer viewed as indestructible.

But still, as was stated numerous times in the first fews posts: Empires are neither created, nor destroyed in a day.

In fairness, it wasnt just the view that they were indestructable that was shattered, much of their strength was. As is widely known demographics was against the late roman empire and their society was nothing like the society of the Republic on which the Empires early strength was based.
No amount of propaganda, wishfull thinking or training was going to change this. This is the reason for the pessamism of the 3rd century that Plotinus mentioned. People could see the end and no way out. The threats, hardship, tribalism and cut-throat politics that shaped the character of the Republic was gone and they had to control/protect half a continent not just a city-state.

There was no one battle, no one decision, no one date that ended the Empire. In essence the original question is subjective. It can be usefull in examining history to ask the question about parts/aspects of the Empires fall to understand it, but this shouldnt lead you to believe the is one overall definative answer.
A more specialised question is easier to answer.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

In fairness, it wasn't just the view that they were indestructible that was shattered, much of their strength was. As is widely known demographics was against the late roman empire and their society was nothing like the society of the Republic on which the Empires early strength was based.

The predominantly Roman army was gone, however, the practice from then on was to hire retainers of Goth Mercenaries to fight as opposed to going to war themselves. Also, they were relying more heavily on cavalry than they were before this point.

No amount of propaganda, wishful thinking or training was going to change this. This is the reason for the pessimism of the 3rd century that Plotinus mentioned. People could see the end and no way out. The threats, hardship, tribalism and cut-throat politics that shaped the character of the Republic was gone and they had to control/protect half a continent not just a city-state.

I don't deny this in any way, as it's true. You think maybe if Gaius Julius Caeser or Pompey or someone had been around they could have staved off defeat for a few extra years?

There was no one battle, no one decision, no one date that ended the Empire. In essence the original question is subjective. It can be useful in examining history to ask the question about parts/aspects of the Empires fall to understand it, but this shouldn't lead you to believe the is one overall definitive answer.
A more specialized question is easier to answer.

I know this, it has been stated countless times, but there are major events that greatly hastened the fall of Rome. Allowing the Goths to cross the Danube, the Battle of Adrianople, the loss of the Africa provinces to the Vandals, the Hun invasions and the Battle of Chalons, I could go on and on. I was merely stating a major point, I'm sorry if you interpreted it as when the empire actually fell.

 

[kryszcztov]

Been reading a long paper about the fall of Rome recently. Might add some stuff.

Indeed people at the time didn't see 476 as something of importance, compared to what happened in 410 (sack of Rome by the Wisigoths). This to say that empires don't fall in one day (this sack lasted 3 days ), but it is a continuous process.

Some think that Antiquity had reached her limits, and that something new had to be injected so as to start a new era. The Germanic Barbarians were given that role. With the definitive break between the West and the East in 395, the proto-European sphere starts to emerge. The Barbarians were the key for that Europe to evolve and conquer the world 1,000 years later. Of course they didn't do it on purpose. But the fall of Rome helped the European cause. The irony is that it's Constantinople which "sent" some barbarians to the West in the 5th century, and will later be sacked by... the European crusaders. Constantinople... still living mostly on her Greco-Roman heritage.

It's also said that the fall of Rome isn't to be taken as a "better" or a "worse", it was just the beginning of a slow evolution to the next level. Antiquity seemed to be staggering ; is that what Decadence is about ?

Finally, the paper cites an Italian dude who talks about "the noiseless fall of an empire in 476". Which brings 2 facts :
- it is the fall of an empire, the person of the emperor (the most important figure) disappearing, which will definitively allow the Barbarians to organize "Europe" as they wish [476 is an important date and had serious consequences] ;
- it was hardly spot by people back then, because this wasn't the first sign of a dying empire, and some may have thought that this was just yet another temporary step down ? [476 isn't that important itself, other dates have significant importance]

 

[Plotinus]

It seems terribly vague to me to say things like "antiquity had reached her limits" or "antiquity seemed to be staggering". What on earth does that mean?