How long did the Roman Empire survive?

Yeah i just hate kaiser for some reason and he popped up in my head when the caesar wannabe personialities came up.

The truth of the matter is we cannot answer this question without first defining one term: Roman Empire.

Roman Empire may be defined as the autocratic state, highly militatarised, using the prefecturate administrative structure inherited from the republic, ruled largely by an Italian elite at its core, multiethnic and multilingual in the people it ruled.

Because of this definition, I would put the end of the Empire at the reign of Heraclius. It was not the coming to power of Heraclius which ended the Roman Empire, but rather the events which occurred during his reign which so transformed its character that we cannot truly call it Roman any longer.

During this period (610-640 AD), the Empire finally dispensed with Latin and Greek became the true language of the law and administration. It was during this period also that the Empire began to lose much of its multi-ethnic character and transformed into a Greek state. The prefecture structure of administration and organisation was finally gotten rid of - instead the distinctly Byzantine thema system replaced it. The rulers were now truly Hellenic rather than Roman in their tastes, language and world outlook - with a strong fusion of Christian ideas also.

While the Empire may have had a chance to rest and then go on to recover her former Western territories, this ideal was shattered forever by the eruption of Islam onto the world stage. No longer was the Empire the Roman hegemon, losing and reconquering territory as had been the fashion for the previous four centuries. Instead she was the Byzantine Empire, continuously engaged in a struggle with Islam for her very survival. The notion of Roman centrality and universalism died during the reign of Heraclius.

Originally posted by Constantine XI The truth of the matter is we cannot answer this question without first defining one term: Roman Empire. Roman Empire may be defined as the autocratic state, highly militatarised, using the prefecturate administrative structure inherited from the republic, ruled largely by an Italian elite at its core, multiethnic and multilingual in the people it ruled. Because of this definition, I would put the end of the Empire at the reign of Heraclius. It was not the coming to power of Heraclius which ended the Roman Empire, but rather the events which occurred during his reign which so transformed its character that we cannot truly call it Roman any longer. During this period (610-640 AD), the Empire finally dispensed with Latin and Greek became the true language of the law and administration. It was during this period also that the Empire began to lose much of its multi-ethnic character and transformed into a Greek state. The prefecture structure of administration and organisation was finally gotten rid of - instead the distinctly Byzantine thema system replaced it. The rulers were now truly Hellenic rather than Roman in their tastes, language and world outlook - with a strong fusion of Christian ideas also. While the Empire may have had a chance to rest and then go on to recover her former Western territories, this ideal was shattered forever by the eruption of Islam onto the world stage. No longer was the Empire the Roman hegemon, losing and reconquering territory as had been the fashion for the previous four centuries. Instead she was the Byzantine Empire, continuously engaged in a struggle with Islam for her very survival. The notion of Roman centrality and universalism died during the reign of Heraclius.

 Technically, in true political terms- the last remnant of the Roman Empire fell with the fall of German and A-H Empires after the wwi (or in 1922 if we calculate the Ottoman empire as one of the pretenders- and in many ways we rightfully should).
Other remnents of the Roman empire were- West Roman empire, East Roman (Byzantine) empire, Bulgarian empire, Sultanate of Rum, Latin Empire in Constantinople, Empire of Trebizond, Serbian Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Russian Empire and French Empire (I think- that's about it).
So it lasted from 27 BC to 1918 (1922).


Edited by Larus - 02-May-2007 at 11:10

Originally posted by Aelfgifu I do not buy these artificial links between the Roman empire and later ones. The only link between the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire is a lot of wishful thinking, same for any that came after. The only direct continuum of the Empire was the Byzantine empire, and that ended well and good with the Ottomans. Any other claims are just desperate attempts to create continuity where there is none.

Perhaps you are right, but still, that "wishful thinking" was a crucial political agenda of the following era.

Well, if you put it like that- than the Byzantine Empire was not a Roman Empire- it was a Greek Empire. So we can also remove Constantinople from the equation and the eventual Ottoman conquest.

P.S. The question is not "when did the Roman Empire end?", but "How long did th Roman Empire survive"


Edited by Larus - 02-May-2007 at 12:17

Things are not so clear-cut ...

Originally posted by Leonardo Things are not so clear-cut ... � "Not until the time of Emperor Otto III [983-1002] did Western Emperors consistently start calling themselves "Imperator Romanorum" [Roman Emperor] in direct challenge to the "Basileus Romaion" of Constantinople. Otto III took this step on the prompting of his mother Theopano, a princess from Constantinople who understood the subtleties of the problem. The "Basileus Romaion" of the time, Basil II [reigned 976-1025] was not a kinsman of Theopano, and she desired to elevate her son above the competition at Constantinople by calling Otto "Imperator Romanorum." Of course, well-informed people in the West knew already that the best way to insult the authorities in Constantinople, if that was the goal, was to deny their identity as Romans. Call them "Graecus:" that translated to "Hellene," that implied pagan as well as not Roman. "

the Byzantines called themselves Romans because they had an uninterrupted history dating back to the founding of Constantinople and the split of the Roman empire to two halves.The emperors of Byzantium continued the line of the eastern roman emperors and saw themselves as the only heirs of Rome because it gave them prestige to be called Kings of the Romans than king of the Greeks.This was the official state propaganda.But by the time of the 10th century the Byzantines were greeks, not romans.
The majority of the common people spoke greek
The language of the Church was greek
the language of administration was greek
the language of the scholars was also greek
and finally they were called Greeks in the west and by the Pope

On the other hand Venice or the kingdom of Sicily were truly roman.
For example the common people in Venice spoke a language derived from latin
they had uninterrupted history since the roman times,
the language of their church was latin and the language of administration and of the scholars was also latin.

In my oprinion by the time of the reign of Basil II(10th century) Byzantiun represents medieval hellenism, not Rome.


Edited by nikodemos - 04-May-2007 at 07:06

that its such a complex question is a fantastic testament to the romantic side of Rome.

Rome was founded in 753 B.C.
During the reign of Emperor Constantine, Constantinople became the prominent city of the Roman Empire, and after the fall of the Western half of the Empire is 476 AD, the Eastern Roman Empire continued the Roman Civilization until it's ultimate demise in 1453 AD. All in all, that is 2,106 years.

If you really want to stretch it, we could say that Trebizond was an even further continuation of Rome, which would then mean that Rome lasted until 1461 AD, pushing her total years to 2,114 years. But I think that's too much of a stretch.