When did the Roman Empire legally end?

Mouthwash

Escaped Lunatic
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
9,368
Location
Hiding
I'm curious about this because I just read a story where a lawyer tried to sue Italy over the trial of Jesus, and failed because Italy isn't a legal successor to the Roman Empire. It would be interesting if there was, though. I mean, the Ottoman Sultans declared themselves to be Caesars and the Pope holds the title of Pontifex Maximus to this day. When did the last figure or entity with a reasonably broad recognition of their claim to govern/be the Roman empire exist?
 
Some things seem to be confused here. The pontifex maximus actually was just one of several of Rome's priests. (Caesar was one, but it didn't entitle him to rule the republic.) So it would be equally futile to sue the Vatican. Now, the Western Roman empire ended with the deposition of the last emperor and the sending of the imperial regalia to Constantinople by Odoacer. The Roman empire didn't end in Italy though; it ended with Constantinople in 1453. (Again, this didn't end the the Greek church, but it did end the church as state church.) By this time, of course, speaking of a Roman 'empire' was mostly pretense. But it did end the empire legally. The Ottoman titles were sultan and, after the conquest of Baghdad, caliph - not caesar. In fact, no empire or state since has claimed to be legal successor, so I fear a legal case would be futile in any case - for whatever reason.
 
Some things seem to be confused here. The pontifex maximus actually was just one of several of Rome's priests. (Caesar was one, but it didn't entitle him to rule the republic.) So it would be equally futile to sue the Vatican.

I'm aware of what the Pontifex Maximus was; I'm just using it as an example of a Roman office which survived to the present. This is something you could have figured out by context, because I go on to ask about when the office of Roman Emperor actually ended. :nono:

The Ottoman titles were sultan and, after the conquest of Baghdad, caliph - not caesar. In fact, no empire or state since has claimed to be legal successor, so I fear a legal case would be futile in any case - for whatever reason.

You are dead wrong. The Ottoman sultans styled themselves Qayser-i Rûm (Caesar of Rome) after the fall of Constantinople. But apparently this was no longer used by the time of WWI, so sometime in between the title must have been abandoned.

Anyway, it's not even like the Byzantines had an undisputed claim to the title. The Holy Roman Emperor was seen in the West to hold the same title as the original Roman Emperor; it's just that there was no Roman state.
 
Most logical date, as Agent also told you, is 1453. HRE had next to no tie to the roman empire, nor did ottomans or even Russia.

More practical date would be 1204, given after that the rulers of Nicaea and Epirus already in their public speeches addressed the public as greek, so did other states taking part of the area (eg Dusan's kingdoms of 'serbs and greeks').
 
Most logical date, as Agent also told you, is 1453. HRE had next to no tie to the roman empire, nor did ottomans or even Russia.

More practical date would be 1204, given after that the rulers of Nicaea and Epirus already in their public speeches addressed the public as greek, so did other states taking part of the area (eg Dusan's kingdoms of 'serbs and greeks').

Please understand if I wait for a second opinion on this. :twitch:
 
1453.
 
I might put the date at 1204 though.
Any reason why? Political groups considering themselves Byzantine -with pretty decent claims to that title- lasted for another quarter millennium after that date.
 
He is referring to the crusaders' conquest of Constantinople. While that may have permanently crippled the empire, legally it had no consequence. The crusaders 'successor state' was known as the Latin empire though.

Mouthwash said:
I'm aware of what the Pontifex Maximus was; I'm just using it as an example of a Roman office which survived to the present. This is something you could have figured out by context, because I go on to ask about when the office of Roman Emperor actually ended.

Which was answered after the bit you seem to be nitpicking about.

Mouthwash said:
]The Ottoman sultans styled themselves Qayser-i Rûm (Caesar of Rome) after the fall of Constantinople.

I stand corrected. Doesn't alter the fact that legally the empire ended with the conquest by the Ottomans - regardless of how they styled themselves. The Ottomans didn't continue the empire (which was long gone), anymore than any other ruler who used the title caesar (Bulgars, Moscovians, etc) did. None of this was of any legal consequence.
 
I stand corrected. Doesn't alter the fact that legally the empire ended with the conquest by the Ottomans - regardless of how they styled themselves. The Ottomans didn't continue the empire (which was long gone), anymore than any other ruler who used the title caesar (Bulgars, Moscovians, etc) did. None of this was of any legal consequence.

Many of the Ottoman Sultans after 1453 made a pretty big deal about being the continuation of the Roman Empire. So while 1453 makes a neat and clean "historian" date for the end of the Empire, it could be said that the Empire instead fizzled out during the 16th century.

I'm sure that there are some in the Vatican today who sympathies with the old papal line that the Catholic Church is the Roman Empire in theocratic form.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A considerable problem with finding the "End" of something is that consciousness can long outlive the clean "historian date". Take the end of Roman Britain for example. Many make a lot of hay out of the 410 date, or say it was when this or that usurper took the garrisons to the continent.

However, it doesn't take away from the fact that for the people who lived there at the time most likely didn't immediately think that there was such an abrupt end. A generation or two would have simply waited and expected that the empire would come back at some point, and many of the Roman institutions on the island would still relied on the "authority of Rome". This can go even further if one takes to the theory that the Saxons had actually been on the island before 410 and the Anglo-Saxon culture became dominate for various reasons during the chaotic mess of the 5th and 6th centuries. Those who lived and worked in the Empire would have considered themselves Germanic Late-Romans, with their children and grandchildren not having this identity.
 
Then there's the sliver of Empire called the Empire of Trebizond that lasted until 1461, and the Principality of Theodoro (I never heard of it either), a fragment of the Trebizond empire that lasted until 1475...
 
Then there's the sliver of Empire called the Empire of Trebizond that lasted until 1461, and the Principality of Theodoro (I never heard of it either), a fragment of the Trebizond empire that lasted until 1475...

The Principality of Theodoro was a more or less city-state like principality on the Crimean Peninsula, centered around the city of Mangup (called Doros or Theodoro in Greek). It was populated by Hellenized Crimean Goths and various sister-houses of Byzantine royalty/nobility.

A cool fact about the Princ. of Theodoro is that it is probably the last region in Europe where an Eastern Germanic Language existed, Crimean Gothic. West Germanic (English, Dutch, German) and North Germanic (Danish, Norwegian, Swedish) all grew and thrived, while Eastern Germanic (Lombardic, Burgundian, Vandalic) all got subsumed by Romance Languages in their various regions.
 
The question when the Roman Empire legally ended is ill-defined, because you would have to specify: According to which laws? There were several empires that claimed to be the Roman Empire and according to their own laws they were. Even today, if the pope would suddenly claim to be the Roman Emperor and would change church laws to reflect this, he would be according to these laws.
 
However, it doesn't take away from the fact that for the people who lived there at the time most likely didn't immediately think that there was such an abrupt end. A generation or two would have simply waited and expected that the empire would come back at some point, and many of the Roman institutions on the island would still relied on the "authority of Rome". This can go even further if one takes to the theory that the Saxons had actually been on the island before 410 and the Anglo-Saxon culture became dominate for various reasons during the chaotic mess of the 5th and 6th centuries. Those who lived and worked in the Empire would have considered themselves Germanic Late-Romans, with their children and grandchildren not having this identity.
To add to this, both Theoderic and Clovis saw themselves as ruling within the Roman system and both began making moves to set themselves up as augustus. Had either them claimed the title of augustus we likely would have considered the Western Roman Empire lasting a good deal longer as their wasn't much difference between an Empire ruled by a 'barbarian' generalissimo and a 'barbarian' augustus. Guy Halsall makes a convincing argument that the idea of 'Roman-ness' in civic institutions only gave way in the mid 6th century as a result of Justinian's propaganda portraying the Roman successor states as barbarian and fundamentally not-Roman.
 
I like the year 641* CE. The Eastern Roman Empire became decidedly more Greek in language, culture, and ethnicity following the reforms of Heraclius and the loss of eastern territory to the Arab conquests. This timeline, like the 476 CE date, continues the idea that Rome never fell, it just slowly disappeared.
 
I like the year 461 CE. The Eastern Roman Empire became decidedly more Greek in language, culture, and ethnicity following the reforms of Heraclius and the loss of eastern territory to the Arab conquests. This timeline, like the 476 CE date, continues the idea that Rome never fell, it just slowly disappeared.

I assume you mean 641 then.
 
Top Bottom