Not even then my friend. not even then. U See what happened in 800 AD was the revival of the roman empire in the west because charlomagne conquered most of the old western provinces and was crowned emperor of the romans in the west and the eastern empire recognised his title in 812 AD under the byzantine=roman emperor michael I Ragaves so what we have in 812 AD is a united empire in the east and in the west for the last time in the first millennium AD.
This unity was very different from the 476 AD unity because in the 6th century the empire was strong enough to reconquer the west BUT after the events of 800 and 812 AD the situation was different. In the 9nth-10nth centuries the romans of the west had forgot the imperial unity of the previous centuries also because the arabs had conquered the whole eastern-southern empire in the course of the 7nth century (messopotamia, egypt, syria, palestine, roman africa, spain) and the unity was broken.
Charlomagne indeed revived the west but not for long. In 843 AD the west finally was divided in to the future states of italy, germany, france and spain and the eastern empire could not intefere in the west anymore.
In my opinion the final break of the roman empire started in the 7nth century with the arab conquests (636-711) and was completed in the 10nth-11nth centuries, first with the creation of the holy roman empire of the germanic nations in the west in 962 (OTTO I) and then with final church division in 1054 AD.
The empire survived in the east in name only after the battle of manjikert in 1071 until in 1204 AD and then in 1453 fell to the franks and the ottomans.
reply
share
DanageTyford
17 years ago
They attempted revival.
As Voltare put it: "The Holy Roman Empire is not Holy, not Roman and not an Empire".
When Rome fell on 4th September 476 C.E. the Roman Empire lived on in the East for almost a thousand years more. Eventually they fell on Tuesday 29th May 1453 C.E. The banner of the SPQR was still used at Dara. The Eastern Empire was referred to as the Roman Empire by medieval sources.
The Holy Roman Empire, if it ever was that, was a confederation of states under an elected Holy Roman Emperor, or Kaiser, ruler of the First Reich.
The attempted invasion of Ostrogothic territory in 538 C.E. led to the Papacy being named supreme pontificate of the Christian Church, and the Western and Eastern halves temporially united (the Great Restoration, or something like that). Ultimately Justinian's (the Eastern Emperor) and Belisarius's (the Eastern Roman general) gains were lost some time after Justinian's death.
Ultimately the Roman Empire could be seen to live on, as first the Roman Catholic Church (which I do NOT believe in) and the European Union de facto.
reply
share
theromanempire-1
17 years ago
Once more i will say that rome (the empire) did not fell in 476. Odoacer send the insigmia to the emperor zeno in new rome and 80 years almost after theodosiu's death (395) the empire was united again under zeno's rule (476-491)
As for the rest i agree...
reply
share
Mausthemighty
17 years ago
I also think the Roman empire ended in the year 1453 and not in 410. The western part may have ceased to exist in the fifth century, the Eastern part of the Roman empire lived on for another thousand years.
reply
share
chrismahon2005
17 years ago
But it was more greek then roman,they feel out big time with the western church.
reply
share
theromanempire-1
17 years ago
There's a book which u can find in amazon called "the rise and fall of the holy roman empire" from charlomagne to napoleon and there u will find out that the successor western empire of charlomagne was far from holy BUT WAS ROMAN.
This book tells the whole story. from charlomagne to the 4 crusades and from the renaissance to the napoleons' coronation as the last holy roman emperor in 1804.
Now if napoleon considered himself a roman emperor 200 years ago then i think the historians who end rome's empire in the 5th century MUST CHANGE THEIR PROFFESSION.
reply
share
Romulus99
16 years ago
rome fell with the sacking of rome and later the deposing Romulus Augustulus in 476 by that time the only land that rome held was italy anything after this point in the west was barbarian rule so it was not rome or the idea of rome as soem have said the east went on till 1453 so really the empire fell on that date
also the east conquered most all of the west back at one point in the past but lost most of it back over the years
also the holy roman empire was nothing to do with the roman empire it was just a name read up on it
napoleon considered himself a roman emperor
he did not he just used the name emperor he did not think he was the roman emperor but he try to conquer the world
reply
share
ztpt
14 years ago
theromanempire,that is your opinion,you cant say all other historians are wrong..this after all a theory..you cant really say that the empire in the west de-facto existed after 476,and the "united" empire had de facto control over the now barbarian territory.... even how much they paid lip servie to the eastern emperor...granted there were small conclaves of romans here and there,but a large scale control of portions of the west and all of italy didnt come before Flavius Belisarius in the 6th century..
For "the holy roman empire" wich was the most misleading name of a nation ever..was nothing more than a federation of german states that wanted to play caesar..
reply
share