When did Rome fall?

June 25, 2025
First of all, sorry that I have been gone for a month. I don't think I will upload articles as often as I used to, I don't have as much ambition for it. Anyways, the question posed in the title seems obvious to answer. According to Google it fell in 476 AD. But there is a catch; this only applies to the Western Roman Empire. Someone with a casual interest in history will probably be quick to remind everyone that the Byzantine empire was actually just the Eastern Roman Empire, since that is what they called themselves, that is what the Western Roman Empire called them, and the Western and Eastern Roman empires were created and split from each other by Roman emperor Constantine I. Calling them the 'Byzantine' empire is like exclusively calling America "The land of the free and the home of the brave". So therefore the Roman empire fell in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople, right? Yet again, it is more complicated then that. In fact, nearly every European empire ever since the fall of Rome has proclaimed themselves to be Rome. Here is a list of every country to have ever been considered Rome besides the Western and Eastern Roman empires: Each potential Roman successor state has justified their claim to Roman succession using different definitions of Rome. Is Rome a culture? A territory? An institution? A royal family? Being considered Roman by a certain entity/entities? To answer the question of when Rome fell, you have to know what Rome is/was. The simplest way to know this is by looking at what pre-schism Rome thought on Roman succession. Depending on what Roman emperor was in power, there would be a different definition of what Rome is. A prevailing theory was that a Roman emperor had to be a here to the Julio-Claudian dynasty, but the Julio-Claudian dynasty ended with Nero so unless Nero was the last Roman emperor, the Julio-Claudian dynasty wasn't the definitive trait of being a Roman emperor. Other Roman emperors also used the support of the Roman military as a mark of being a valid Roman emperor, so the definition of Rome changed a lot over time. But what unites all of the Roman emperors is the recognition of the Roman government. And since the Eastern Roman Empire was valid, it can thus be determined that being Roman came down not to territory/culture either. Therefore, being Roman relies on the insitutional succession of the Roman governments. The Western Roman Empire, while it did fall in 476 AD, didn't vanish completely. The senate remained under Gothic barbarian rule by Odoacer who was the king of Italy, until he was succeeded by the Ostrogothic empire who also had control of the senate and kingship over Italy. Thus the senate absorbed itself under the Kingdom of Italy, which would continue until 553 when it was invaded by the Eastern Roman Empire. Meanwhile the Eastern Roman Empire dissappeared entirely after Constantinople fell. So did Rome fall in 1453 after all? Well there still is the issue of whether the Holy Roman Empire was Roman. Their claim to being Roman is unique; in that it is a combination of institutional recognition and cultural succession. Mainly that: So the case for the HRE being Roman rests on whether the pope had the right to coronate a Roman emperor. As I explained earlier, the Roman emperor would be chosen and upheld by different means and entities so this isn't outside of the realm of possibility, but it is much more different since the Western Roman Emperor still had recognition from the Roman government, whereas the Holy Roman Emperor didn't. Of course as a Catholic I side with the church on whether the HRE was Roman, but just leaving it at that isn't intelectually satisfying nor convincing to non-Catholics. Thus I want to grapple with the issue rationally. The Catholic Church, while of course not apart of the Roman government, played a heavy role in Roman politics. The church arguably had more influence than the senate. The church advised emperors on military policy, had their bishops work as judges in court cases and governed cities, among other things. Thus, if there was no longer a valid Roman emperor it makes perfect sense that the church would take it upon herself to coronate one. One may point out that the Eastern Roman Empire still existed, but their emperor was considered invalid as she was both a female and a heretic. The church also considered it necessary to coronate a Roman emperor since by that point the Roman emperor was not just an emperor, but also served a role as being the protector of the faith and patron of the church. With all of that in mind, I think the pope had the authority to coronate Charlemagne as the Roman emperor. Thus, Rome fell in 1806, right? Well, not exactly. The Hapsburgs, who were the Holy Roman Emperors by that point, started ruling over the Austrian Empire just 2 years before the fall of the Holy Roman Empire. And after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian Empire gained many of the Holy Roman Empire's chancelleries, courts, territories and it's bureaucracy. So if it has not only the Roman emperor but many parts of the Roman government, I think they can be considered Roman. The Austrian Empire fell in 1867, but of course this still isn't the end of Rome. The Austrian Empire was restructured into the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and it shared both Hapsburg rule, the military, legal codes, and finance. It was basically a merger of the Austrian Empire with Hungary. Thus, the Roman Empire ended in 1918 when Austria-Hungary fell and the Hapsburgs had to give up their rule. The Hapsburgs fortunately stated that should the Austrians ever change their minds, the Hapsburgs will return to the throne. Therefore it can be said that the Roman emperors still exist.