Ask Lemmy

There wasn't a single point. The empire lost control over it's territories gradually, losing power and relevance step by step. With one big resurgence along the way.

• 370s large groups of Goths fleeing from the Huns enter the empire. Unlike other barbarians they never fully recognize the authority of the Emperor, and continue living semi-independently in various areas of the empire.
• 395 the split into Easter and Western empire unintentionally becomes permanent. There was never any intention to fully divide it, but the position of Emperor became inherited and Theodosius had two sons (both children at the time)
• Because Emperors were children they become figureheads while the actual power is held by other people (advisers, regents, military commanders). It continues once emperors grow up. In the East this works out, but in the West it results in the collapse of the central authority
• During early 400s the state apparatus in Britain and northern Gaul becomes especially weak and various groups start forming their own "states" still owing fealty to the Empire (and even fighting for the Empire most of the time). Groups of barbarians even reach Africa and establish themselves there.
• 476 - the traditional date. The last Western Emperor is deposed and nobody put in his place, because the position was irrelevant by the time. About this time other semi-independent groups just continue acting on their own
• 490s - the Eastern empire continues on, and they want the West back, so they authorize a group of Ostrogoths led by Theodoric to take over Italy. The Ostrogoths establish their own kingdom, still nominally claiming to be the Western Empire. In pratice fully independent.
• 530s-540s - Justinian decides to finally reclaim the entire Western Empire. This if fairly successful - Italy, Africa and parts of Iberia are reclaimed. However it coincided with the first know instance of bubonic plague which throws everything into chaos and prevents the full reconquest from taking place.

Personally I'd say for most inhabitants of the Western empire, 420s were the turning point. Their immediate rulers became non-Roman, even if in theory they were still under Roman command.

Edit: this is all about the Western empire. East is a longer story and will continue until 600s, 1204 or 1453. Which is a whole another debate.

October 22, 2014 when AS Roma was defeated in Rome 1-7 against Bayern Munich in the Champions League. That was the last day of the Roman Empire.

The actual sack of the city in 476 seems like the most obvious "end". Of course it was only a carcass compared to a century earlier at that point.

Considering the last few Western emperors also intermarried with non-Romans (mostly the daughters of Gothic rulers) the actual end was obviously earlier than 476, but after that point no one in the world could ignore the fact that the mightiest empire that had ever existed until then was, well, gone.

I imagine it must've been somewhat similar to how we see the US losing relevancy day by day in modern times.

It's pretty much memetic that there is no agreed-on date.

Like, you could go 1456 and not be wrong, and in multiple ways Russia inherited a lot of Byzantium. At the other end, Rome was in decline loong before it was sacked, like centuries, and actually had had brushes with instability all along in it's Empire period, like the year of four emperors in 69.

Edit: One of the mentioned memes.

when you fall down the stairs, do you timestamp the moment you tripped, the moment you landed at the bottom, or every moment you hit each and every step on the way down?

I think the problem is that the Roman empire was on the brink of collapse so many times, it would have been weird for someone to think one particular time was special. The troubles of the Third Century, for instance, looked a lot worse at the time than anything after that, but the empire recovered just fine.

The first (of several) sack of Rome in 410 AD was probably a huge red flag. But by then, Rome was not even the capital of the Western Empire any longer. The sack was mostly a symbolic loss, Rome having been able to defend herself for a thousand years.

In hindsight, permanently moving the capital from Rome to Constantinople was what might have turned the page for the empire. It was a complex series of changes, placing a new religion without strong ties to Rome on top, moving the political center of the empire to the East, and freeing the emperors for a while from the pressure of the senate and the people.

I note that the Eastern provinces were economically outperforming the Western ones by large margins even before Barbarian incursions. That the East would run the empire was probably inevitable at some point.

There's this saying: the roman empire never ended, it just became a religion

Consider this.... The Roman Empire still exists through Catholicism with Vatican City (in the city of Rome) as its seat of power.

It's more of a decline over some 100 years in the case of the western Empire. If you want me to pick an end point I'd say the sacking of Rome 476(??)CE.

Do you mean inflection point?

27 BC, the Fall of the Republic.

Real Romans don't have kings.

It depends on when it's politically convenient to say so for the powers of the area you're in. That's the real answer.