Rome didn't fall when you think it did

Rome fell much later than most English-speakers realize. We have tended to be taught world history from an English point of view, which means we have traditionally dated the Fall of Rome to AD 476, even though the Roman empire continued on for a thousand years after that.

Putting a date to the fall of Rome is tricky, because it depends on how you define "Rome." If you regard the Holy Roman Empire as a continuation of the western Roman empire, then you'd have to say that the Roman empire continued to as recently as 1806. But no one says that, because people have a certain idea in their head of what real "Rome" was.

I think the most correct date for the fall of Rome is 1453, with the Ottoman capture of Constantinople. The Byzantine empire of the Middle Ages, with its capital at Constantinople, represented an unbroken continuation of the Roman empire of Antiquity.

[hvermout]

My son learned in English primary that the Roman Empire fell in 410 AD. Because that's the year the Romans left Britain.

[gersonperez]

Here's a history teacher that acknowledges his students will be distracted by their phones, and proactively offers vintage silent comedy scenes for them to distract without leaving class. Brilliant.

[kalpeshmanna]

I always get fascinated to see how a single city in Italian peninsula came to such prominence that whole civilizations and state entities claim legacy of it. Even though they have nothing to do with that physical city in particular.

In this case I think Rome is truly unique in our history, that the term "Roman" means so many things outside of that city context.

[Theblueshark]

Considering Rome in the West, its interesting to note that the Roman Senate continued until around the early 7th century, and continued to have authority under Odoacer and Theoderic in Rome

[youvebeengreeked]

330 - The capital city is moved to Nova Roma ("New Rome"), arguably beginning the "Byzantine" period
395 - Last time the Western and Eastern Empires were united
476 - Last Emperor in Italy is deposed by Odoacer
480 - Last province of the Western Empire (Dalmatia) is taken by the Ostrogoths
708 - Last rump state of the Western Empire (Altava) is taken by the Umayyads
800 - Charlemagne is crowned as the first Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope in Rome, delegitimising Constantinople as the seat of the Empire
1054 - The Great Schism divides the Western Catholic Church based in Rome from the Eastern Orthodox Church in Constantinople
1204 - Constantinople is sacked, and the empire divided up between Latin states
1453 - Last Emperor in Constantinople dies fighting against the Ottoman Empire
1460 - Last province of the Eastern Empire (the Morea) is taken by the Ottoman Empire
1479 - Last rump State of the Eastern Empire (Despotate of Epirus) is taken by the Ottoman Empire

Real answer - Rome is an idea, and She shall thus live on forever. She has left Her legacy through Her language, religion, politics, culture, architecture, warfare... *ROMA CAPVT MVNDI*

[J_Stronsky]

A note on the English-centric view of history note you opened with; I think we often miss an aspect to this, which is that for any given region and period in history there is an automatic bias simply to the sources available to any historian in that region.

In uni I was fascinated by a class taught on Central-Asian history as it broke me out of that English-speaking bias, but that subject was only available because of a single professor at my uni who had the inclination to teach it and he was only had to do so because in the last few decades translations to a whole bunch of sources and academic literature that had previously been sitting in universities, libraries and archives in Russia and China have increasingly been made available post-Cold war.
Central Asian history was not as well recorded so large parts of the puzzle have only been revealed through recent archaeological efforts (many of which were done by the Soviets) and written historical sources sit within the archives of their historical neighbours and those sources are biased by those civilisations and obscured to those who can't get a translation.

So really, it's important to remember that whatever you're reading about the past it's always coloured by the lens of time since then, the very location and time in which you're reading about it now and the sources you have access to.
Language is the biggest barrier to your ability to see past any of these things.

[doddsino]

I like how Charlie Chaplin and Harold Lloyd fought against the Visigoths and Ottomans.

[yorktown]

A few bits of weirdness to add:
The revival of a Western Roman Emperor by the Pope was useful after the schism between the Latin Catholics and the Greek Orthodox, especially once the Crusades commenced (and the 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople).
When the Turks finally conquered Constantinople, the Ottoman Sultans took up the title of "Kaiser-i-Rum", Caesar of Rome. "Rumelia" continued to be a term for the Turkish possessions in Europe (typically the Balkans). Romania, one of the last areas of this region to speak a Latin-based language, continues to exist today.
Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman Empire continued to call themselves "Romios", right up until the Greek War of Independence in the 19th Century.
The Holy Roman Empire didn't just end out of boredom, but because Napoleon Bonaparte conquered Central Europe and ordered its dissolution. Conveniently, Napoleon had recently crowned himself Emperor (in a weird ceremony with the Pope). His nephew, Napoleon III, revived the imperial title, but lost it to the Prussians, whose king was proclaimed "Kaiser" and Emperor of the Germans.
Notwithstanding the machinations of Napoleon, the Hapsburgs decided to keep on calling themselves "Emperor".
And over in Moscow, Prince Michael Romanov had married a niece of the last Christian Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. He decided to call Moscow the "Third Rome", and that he was now "Czar" (Caesar) of Russia.
The German, Austrian, Turkish, and Russian "Caesars" all lost their thrones in World War One.
The Bishops of Rome continued to act with civil authority over the Papal States from the time of Justinian all the way up to the time of Mussolini, who claimed to be re-establishing the Roman Empire by conquering Libya, Albania, Greece, Egypt, Somalia, Ethiopia, and "allowing" the Pope to keep Vatican City as a sovereign mini-state.
When the National Socialists took over Germany in 1933, they retconned the German Empire of 1871-1918 as the "Second Reich", or second realm (Charlemagne's Empire being the "first reich"), and called themselves the "Third Reich".
So the Bolsheviks come in, kill their rivals, kill the Czar and his family, kill a lot of their own people too for good measure; and their strongest strong man, Josef Stalin (the Man of Steel), gathers to himself more power than anyone ever before or since, cuts deals with Hitler and Mussolini, then fights and defeats the Germans (turning Berlin to rubble), and occupies half of Europe.
After all the wars, the Americans throw a bunch of money at Western Europe, but on the condition that they co-operate. The Western Europeans invent the European Union, a supernational polity that gradually expands to include most of Europe.

[SunriseCavalier]

No sir. The correct response to "when did Rome fall?" Is "define Rome." 😏

[Aydin-Adam]

I love how you're able to contextualize history and recognize that the world still kept moving on outside of the influence of the English

[sariahmarier]

The book, 1453 by Roger Crowley is a fantastic read!!! I love the way the author describes sounds! A great place to start for anyone interested in learning more about the year.

[BillMcHale]

I believe the idea that the Western Empire fell in 476 was an idea that was first popularized during the reign of Justinian. Following the overthrow of Romulus Augustalias, Odoacer did not proclaim Italy to be independent, but in fact, sent the imperial regalia back to Constantinople and claimed to rule Italy in the Emperor's name. As did Theodoric the Great. The Senate continued to meet and actually in many respects had more real power than it had in the 100 years before and actually Rome in 500-520 AD was in better shape than it had been pretty much anytime in the 5th century. . It was not until Justinian launched his campaign to retake Rome that it became common to start to refer to Rome has having fallen... in part to justify Justinian's campaign. Now, in fairness, Odoacer and Theodoric did little other than pay lip service to the Eastern Emperor, but had Justinian not acted, it is possible that Italy would have become powerful and built on the rather large state that Theodoric left. And of course the Gothic war ended up destroying the remains of the Western Empire, with many if not most of the Senators fleeing to Constantinople and essentially leaving Italy a gutted shell. and weakening the Eastern Empire....

[spvrivs]

There is at least one more option - 1917. Because the last dynasty of Constatntinople continued (by mariage) in Russian Tzardom. That's why also Moscow is called "The third Rome".

[EyeLean]

Generally speaking the "fall of Rome" was faster and more dramatic the further west and north you look. It was the most abrupt in England. It was slower and more transitional the further east you look. It took a long time for the eastern empire to fall.

[charleskuhn]

In France, I learned that the Byzantine Empire got named that way to separate Western Europe and the East, as renaissance men wanted to claim descendance from the "real" roman empire as to renew civilization and leave the "dark ages", which was complicated to do when an actual roman empire still existed. The name started to be used in the 16th century, and only gained adoption in the 19th.

[TimeTurner]

Didn't know I needed a fall of the Roman empire video with Charlie Chaplin in the visual background 🤣 I kinda figured that was how it worked out for Rome.

Would you say though, that having a "Roman Empire" that did not occupy Rome by the 14th century, would that be like having "The United States of America" if, say some war or crisis broke out and all that remained of the U.S. was Alaska but they kept the U.S. system of government? And then historians centuries later call it "The Republic of Alaska"

[og_finn]

I'd say it was a process. It fell as a unstoppable force that could enforce its will across three continents in 476, it fell as a state and governing body that took up land in 1453, it fell as a political title used for prestige in 1806, but it never fell as a religious or cultural idea as it influences us to this day in those ways.

[theadventureists]

I love that you’re using clips from The Mighty Hercules. Best kids’ show ever! Also, I love your channel!

[marsspacex]

There was once a dream of Rome you could only whisper it it was so fragile. Save it Maximus😊

[VesnaVK]

About 10 years ago, i had a coworker in her mid-20s with a bachelor's degree in history from a top university. One day in the course of conversation, she happened to say, "Which came first -- the Roman Empire, or the Renaissance?"

I couldn't hide my astonishment. "She looked flustered, and said, "i can never keep those things straight."

I asked, "You majored in history, right?" (I couldn't help asking.)

She got defensive and testy, and said, "Well, yes, but that was a long time ago. I mean, I don't remember EVERYTHING."