When did the Roman Empire legally end?

[Flying Pig]

I think the people who had been living in the imperial capital - in the Eastern Empire - for over a century would have been surprised to hear that they weren't part of the 'actual empire'. Even then, Greece had been part of the empire longer than most of the western provinces - longer than any of them, in fact, save Italy, Sicily, Spain and parts of North Africa. If Gaul had a claim to be the Roman heartland, Macedonia had a better one, and that called itself 'Roman' until 1392.

 

[Traitorfish]

1917. Third Rome best Rome.

But, in regards to Ottoman caesars, to what extent did Byzantine institutions survive into the Ottoman period? The Empire in 1453 looked nothing like the empire in 27BCE, but there's a process of mutation within a basic (if sometimes a bit ropey) institutional continuity. How far did that continue at an "imperial" rather than just local or ecclesiastical level after 1453?

 

[Flying Pig]

I think that by the time you're talking about a basic continuity at imperial level between 27 BC and 1453 AD, you're dealing in vague enough terms that just about anything can be dismissed as 'a bit ropey' but essentially the same. To some extent, that's the whole point: that at no point in Roman history could you lay out an argument that indisputable proved that the current state was the successor of the various historical points that emperors lined up as their ancestors, so taking the current empire as the 'real thing' was always a matter of ideology.

 

[Agent327]

1917. Third Rome best Rome.

That would be 5th Rome rather. So the Bolsheviks continued the tsarist Fourth Rome ideology? Seems a bit incongruent.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I would suggest that the idea of 'legally ending' doesn't quite make sense in any of the time periods we're discussing. Diplomatic recognition as an idea largely depends on the institutions of embassies and standing diplomatic relationships, which only dates to the past couple of centuries, and the idea of an 'official' recognition of succession (or otherwise) between states really comes in with the UN.

Diplomacy, as something engaged in between representatives of two (or more) rulers, is certainly an activity that has been going on for more than two centuries.

When I have more time, I'll try and post a little about the competing claims.

Progress?

 

[Flying Pig]

Diplomacy, as something engaged in between representatives of two (or more) rulers, is certainly an activity that has been going on for more than two centuries.

Yes, but that's not quite what I said. I said that we now define states 'legally existing' by whether they are diplomatically recognised, which means that other states have standing embassies to and from them, and that they are included in international bodies, such as the UN. Before about the 18th century, that frame of thinking didn't exist. Rulers did send emissaries all over the place, but there was no such thing as an 'embassy' which sat in a foreign capital to do diplomatic business - indeed, an embassy only really makes sense when you can send a message somewhere faster than you can send a person. As such, nobody set much in store by where rulers were sending their diplomats. Ancient and medieval rulers did send representatives to people that were undoubtedly in charge of states, but also sent them on 'official' business to rebels, powerful churchmen, important nobles and so on. That didn't imply that those people were being recognised as rulers of states. There were diplomatic protocols (often complicated, and usually involving exactly how you addressed somebody) throughout history which signalled how one ruler perceived the status of another, but they were more usually to do with relative power and status than legitimacy.

 

[Kyriakos]

That would be 5th Rome rather. So the Bolsheviks continued the tsarist Fourth Rome ideology? Seems a bit incongruent.

It was named "third Rome" by immigrants from the Byz Empire. There is also a half-decent phrase about how the first and second Romes fell, and how the third in the north will stand and "a fourth there shall not be".

 

[r16]

having taken the question to people who would have known and who have in turn asked it to people who are like paid a regular monthly salary to know , the "last" Roman was indeed Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary . In those arcane , rather hard to grasp social networking stuff . Hence whoever talks of Romans and legalities and how they can be applied today , through stuff , doesn't know what he/she is talking about in the slightest .

and mind you , the Romes are kinda 5 . Involving nothing of the Moscow in its various forms .

not a Roman , will not be and you know , liking anything ı post is a ticket to be involved in trouble . We Turks are not even in the woods yet . Barely in the shade of it , according to the English language phrase that suggests getting out of the woods equals survival .

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Until this Modern era of international legalism, I would say that identity (almost) always trumps any continuing institutional practices. Take the Kingdom of England for example; if we include the United Kingdom and skip over the Commonwealth, then the institution of the “Kingdom of England” has been around since at least the 940’s. However during the thousand plus years of its existence, its laws and governance have evolved wildly. Yet the people living within it generally always considered themselves English people living in England.

The Kings of England had a tradition of being crowned by acclamation which began in the Anglo-Saxon era and continued well past the Norman Conquest. Obviously this is no longer the fashion, but I don’t think anybody would seriously claim that QEII wasn’t official because it wasn’t done.

 

[Agent327]

If I'm not mistaken, the monarch is still acclaimed - after coronation, that is.

 

[Flying Pig]

Until this Modern era of international legalism, I would say that identity (almost) always trumps any continuing institutional practices. Take the Kingdom of England for example; if we include the United Kingdom and skip over the Commonwealth, then the institution of the “Kingdom of England” has been around since at least the 940’s. However during the thousand plus years of its existence, its laws and governance have evolved wildly. Yet the people living within it generally always considered themselves English people living in England.

The Kings of England had a tradition of being crowned by acclamation which began in the Anglo-Saxon era and continued well past the Norman Conquest. Obviously this is no longer the fashion, but I don’t think anybody would seriously claim that QEII wasn’t official because it wasn’t done.

This is true. The problem comes, however, for precisely the reason that we now go through the whole show of diplomatic recognition - it was entirely possible for two different groups of people to believe that they were Roman people living in the Roman Empire, and the other lot were barbarians living in lost territories.

 

[Kyriakos]

^The western romans were barbarians - even before the fall of the west roman empire

 

[Lohrenswald]

476 480 C.E The fall of the Western Roman Empire...

ftfy