The Great Date Debate: The Fall of Rome

We all have been told that the Roman Empire fell and most of us may even remember the year of that collapse, but for those that have been out of high school or university for more than 180 days, would you be surprised if there was debate on how and why the empire fell? Well, there is a lot of discussion around that, sometimes civil, and sometimes VERY heated. Now that you know there is disagreement around the how and why, would you be shocked to know that there is even debate around the year the empire fell? If you are, you aren’t paying attention. While most think the Roman Empire to be a straight forward, historical area of study, ancient civilizations (yes that includes Rome) are constantly revealing new things that change the narrative through the wonders of archeology. The fall of Rome is a topic we may approach one day here at Seeking History, but that day is not today. We are going to limit our focus and scope to what I am now calling this topic: the Great Date Debate.

Before we get into the dates, let’s talk about why there is a debate. The main reason is that the Roman Empire split into two at one point (there were further divisions than two but we are going to focus here). During the third century CE, Rome went through a devastating series of civil wars, coups, barbarian incursions, and even partitions of the Empire. Eventually, an emperor rose to power that ended what historians call the Crisis of the Third Century. That emperor, Diocletian, upon taking the reins in 284, realized that the Empire was proving too large for one individual to rule, hence, the preceding century long crisis. Diocletian decided it would be better to split the Empire into pieces, with co-emperors ruling those pieces. He split the empire into East and West, with each piece having a senior emperor, known as an Augustus and a junior emperor known as a Caesar, creating a system known as the Tetrarchy. This system held until Diocletian retired (to farm cabbages no less) and his successors squabbled over the Empire’s ultimate control. Finally, in 395 CE, the Empire permanently split into an east/west system with equal co-emperors ruling their respective empires. While both East and West were the still nominally the same empire, they eventually became to be ruled as entirely separate entities. These entities became known to history as The Western Roman Empire (WRE) and The Eastern Roman Empire (ERE). Fun fact, the East eventually became to be known as the Byzantine Empire, even though they never called themselves that. Until the final days of the east, the people of the ERE called themselves Roman. Moving forward, I am going to refer to these two separate states as either the east/west or ERE and WRE, because it’s a lot to type the full name each time.

Ok, now that you understand the split, let’s talk about dates. There are three dates vying to be called the correct one, so we will start with the easiest, September 4, 476 CE. This date is the most commonly accepted date for the fall of the Western Empire. Prior to the fall, the western realms saw repeated incursions by barbarian tribes and a massive invasion by the Huns that caused destabilization to the Roman State. In 476, Odoacer deposed the western emperor, Romulus Augustulus. Romulus Augustulus was only around ten or eleven years old at the time of his removal and he sat on the throne of the West for just a mere eleven months. In reality, Romulus Augustulus (originally Augustus but changed to Augustulus to denote a child in Latin) was put on the throne by his father, Orestes, who ruled through his figurehead son. Orestes held a senior rank in the Roman military at the time and deposed the emperor Julius Nepos, putting Romulus on the throne. Eventually, however, there was an uprising against Romulus and thus Orestes either by the Roman military or Odoacer’s tribe/forces loyal to him, putting Odoacer in charge of their uprising. There is debate around Odoacer’s origin (some say he was from the Hunnic tribes, a German, or a member of one of the Goth tribes) but we do know that he wasn’t originally a Roman, so we will call him a "non-roman” to keep things easy. Once Odoacer succeeded in ousting Orestes and Romulus, he had Orestes executed but spared Romulus as he was just a child, opting to send him into comfortable exile. Instead of crowning himself Emperor of the West, Odoacer declared himself King of Italy and recognized the ERE emperor, Zeno, has his overlord.

The narrative above is mostly straight forward and gives an end to the Empire that is relatively easy to accept with the end of an emperor in place of a king, so then why is there a debate? Well, the main point of contention is around the legitimacy of Romulus Augustulus. Most historians consider Romulus a usurper whose father deposed the recognized emperor Julius Nepos. At this time, the ERE emperor was able to provide legitimacy to the constantly changing emperors of the WRE by politically “recognizing” the emperor. So, the logic against the 476 date follows as thus: if the “legitimate” emperor, Julius Nepos, was still out there, even if deposed by another, then politically the WRE was still in existence and thus did not fall in 476. So when did Julius Nepos’ reign as the emperor of the WRE end then? That question leads us into the next accepted date: 480 CE.

I know, you are probably asking, does four years between two dates really matter that much? In history, yes, every day matters. I mean, you wouldn’t be reading this now if it didn’t matter. So, who was Julius Nepos? Julius Nepos was a noble sent to the west by the ERE emperor to rule over Italy as Augustus and depose an emperor that the ERE didn’t recognize as legitimate. In 474, Nepos removed the usurper, and ruled for one year before being removed by the above-mentioned Orestes. Julius fled to modern day Croatia, known then as the Roman province of Dalmatia where he lived out his days in peace, eventually dying in his sleep. Just kidding, he was brutally murdered four years later (May 9, 480) by allies of the “emperor” he deposed in 474.

If Julius Nepos was the legitimate recognized emperor of the WRE when he died, then why isn’t the date of Rome’s fall accepted as 480? Well, that’s because there is also debate around his legitimacy, with an argument that when he was himself deposed, he ceased being emperor and became a “pretender” to the throne. Second, the Roman Senate, a powerless but still respected institution by this point, accepted and supported Odoacer as the rightful ruler of Italy when he overthrew Orestes and Romulus, which gave legitimacy and continuity of government to Odoacer’s claim as king. I know, this is all a little he said/she said with who is the rightful ruler and who is not but this is why there is a great date debate.

Now, for the final date in our debate, 1453 CE. If you passed math at the age of seven, you realize that is a near thousand-year jump forward in history. If you are asking yourself “but the West fell in 476 or 480, how are we are able to jump that far forward?” Then, you forgot about the Eastern Roman Empire and I am severely disappointed in you. What happened to the ERE? Over time, it tried to recapture the West with varying degrees of success but emerging powers and major world events slowly chipped away at their territory. The first major nail in the coffin for the ERE (don’t come at me with other events, I know there were proceeding factors that started the decline but they aren’t worth mentioning here) was the Fourth Crusade. The Fourth Crusade took the ERE capital of Constantinople in 1201 instead of their goal of Jerusalem and for the first time, the capital of the ERE fell. Eventually, the Latin Empire (centered with Constantinople as its capital) fell in a few decades and the ERE or Byzantine Empire took control again but never fully recovered. Finally, the Ottoman Turks rose up from the Middle East, and (skipping through generations of conflict) laid siege to Constantinople in 1453. The last emperor, Constantine XI Palaeologus, famously removed his regal armor and joined the ranks defending the city as it fell on May 29, 1453, putting an end to over 1400 years of Imperial Roman history. Constatine XI’s body was never found, leading to centuries of speculation around if he died there or was able to flee the city. The accepted opinion is that he died defending the city and wasn’t recognized when the dead were collected.

So again, you may ask, why is 476 accepted as the fall of Rome if the Eastern half of the empire survived for another millennium? Well, solid question, and no, I am not being snarky for a change. As I stated earlier, if you asked a person living in the ERE if they were a Byzantine, they would have replied that they were Roman. Personally, to the author of this article, all three dates are fine while no date is perfect. But let us end with this note, what makes the 476 date nice is the irony attached. The legendary founder of Rome is Romulus and the first emperor of Rome is Augustus. It is fitting the final “accepted” emperor of the Empire combines both those names: Romulus Augustus.