Fall of the Roman Empire, AD 476 or 1453?

  1. Origin profile image60
    Originposted 7 years ago

    I had a discussion a couple nights ago while I was at work (we were bored), and we were discussing the Roman Empire. Thing is, he believes that the "Roman Empire" fell in 476 with the sacking of Rome, and I've always stuck to the conclusion that even though the western half of the empire fell, the eastern half lived on until 1453.

    I remember reading that the term "Byzantine Empire" was a modern day name given to that side of the empire to represent itself, and they themselves didn't use it for the eastern half. They instead, still referred to themselves as Romans. So if that's true, wouldn't we go by what the eastern half of the empire still referred to themselves as, if they did indeed still classify themselves as Romans, and if so wouldn't that make the fall of the Roman empire in 1453?

  2. TMMason profile image68
    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    That is the way I see it.

    And that throws a whole new light on Christian Eschotological Studies.

    Yup... very interesting indeed.

  3. darkside profile image79
    darksideposted 7 years ago

    It doesn't matter what we call it, or really what they called themselves, there was two seats of government, the East and the West, and they ruled themselves.

    They split, and were briefly reunited, and then split again long before either of them fell.

    So you'd refer to the Fall of the Western Roman Empire (476 A.D.) and the Fall of the Eastern Roman Empire (1453 A.D.).

    If someone were to say the Fall of the Roman Empire I would assume they were talking about the Empire whose seat of power was in Rome and Romulus Augustulus (the 14 yeaar old emperor) was ousted, but I'd ask for further clarification.