When did the Roman Empire stop being the Roman Empire

[Robert Vermaat]

Yep, the final Fall of the Roman Empire will take place on may 5th, 4110 AD. Or AUC, I forget. :evil:

Mark my words.

[Ron Andrea]

The other obvious last date is A. D. May 29, 1453, of course.

[SMC]

I'm still catching up after a few weeks away from the board. Its an interesting debate which we used to have in the university, apart from anything else for demarcation purposes between departments (ancient history went to AD363!).

As far as we were concerned in Byzantine Studies, we went from 284-1453. The start date was a liitle dubious. The start of the Byzantine empire was really with Constantine since he moved the capital from Rome to Byzantium and made Christianity legal, which was a major clutural break with what preceeded it. We went back to Diocletian more for background reasons. Was Rome really the capital anyway in the 3rd century - there is a good argument that it was where the emperor was. so Milan, Trier, Sirmium, Thessalonica could all be the capitals.

The main stream view now is that the Roman empire was transformed over time into the Byzantine empire. See Averil Cameron's books for a good summary. However there is a good, very brief summmary of recent ideas on late antiquity, early Byzantium demarcation/transformation in the following article online.


http://www.proc.britac.ac.uk/cgi-bin/so ... ype=header

Peronally I count Heraclius' reign as the end of antiquity but his is the last reign of the transformation period. I justify this on the basis of the rise of Islam and the loos of so much territory and the disappearance of the traditional rival, Persia.

At all times the emperors in Constantinople considered themselves to be Romans with a line of succession back to Augustus. They were there by the grace of God and as there was only one God in heaven so too there could only be one emperor on earth. Charlemagne's coronation was not recognised at first and later the Holy Roman emperor was seen as a subordinate position rather like a client king.
The sack of Constantinople in 1204 was a serious blow but as far as the Byzantines were concerned it not affect them being Romans. Three successor states maintained the imperial traditions, but it was the Nicene based Palaeolgii who recaptured the city in 1261.
The Ottomans regarded the Byzantines as Romans - hence Rumeli Hisar is the name given to the fortress they built to stop supplies reaching the city from the Black Sea in the final siege.

Apart from the idea of perceptions, the survival of structures and names can been seen as a continuation of the Roman system of goverment. Administrative and legal structures survived, although as with any structure or sstems it evolved. John Haldon's works demonstrate the survival of Roman systems well ito the 8th century in many areas. As this is well in to the Byzantine period, that supports the idea of the end of Byzantium as the end of Rome.

Just my thoughts

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi all

Just a quick base touch to confirm I'm still alive. And looking.

It's all evidence of an identity called Roman. The catch is what did these guys mean by "Roman" when the city at the heart of their homeland was no longer Rome? This is where I submerge again - I found this really neat article or book online about roman identity. No, I didn't make a note of it - I know, I know...

Hopefully next time I come up for air I'll be able to wave it like a lobster and announce I've found it. Interesting - that note about the Greeks in the 1940s calling themselves Romans. Bet they were popular with the local resistance!

Cheers

SPC/Howard