The real date for the Fall of the Roman Empire!
🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
🤗 Join our Patreon community: / maiorianus
Or become an official Maiorianus member on KZhead: / maiorianus461
🎁 The official Maiorianus merch store is now OPEN:
maiorianus.myspreadshop.com
🤗 One-Time Donation?
- PayPal: paypal.me/Maiorianus
- Bitcoin: bc1qv4lsfsplvfecrrgvmfclhga28we7mvh9563xdj
🔗 Share the video with anyone who might be interested (it helps a ton!)
The wonderful background music is by Adrian von Ziegler: • Relaxing Roman Music -...
Disclosures: Some links in the description are affiliate links which means that if you purchase something by clicking on one of them, your host Sebastian will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. In this way you will be supporting the channel to improve the video production quality at no extra cost to you.
📬 Contact us: maiorianus.sebastian@gmail.com
#Maiorianus
🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus
You spelled Montenegro wrong
As i understood it, the Imperial regalia was sent to Constantinople as it was said Rome no longer needed an Emperor, and this was on or about 476AD and therefore a perfectly acceptable date, is this wrong?.
Short answer. Roman Empire didn't fall! It was more that East and West Rome stop officially recognizing each other. But many countries of West Europe did see themselves as Roman. While Byzantium start seeing itself as Greek.
@@colinharbinson8284 After Odeocer, Theoderik sent imperial regalia to Constantinople to subjugate himself to the Emperor
@@colinharbinson8284I place it later than this video thanks
Truly ironic, the man who dreamt of Rome the hardest, the one who wanted to save it the most, killed it. Good show.
Interesting. - As my current belief is actually that about the same happened with Cicero and the Republic. 😉
"To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace." - Tacitus
The prose of tacitus is timeless. His histories should be required reading.
The context of that sentence is a Caledonian Chieftain talking to his troops before the Battle of Mons Graupius against Agricola. And it’s narrative prose.
Thank you for shining a light on the history of Rome.
Justinian's war in Italy is blamed for the depopulation. But I have to wonder if the plaque was not mostly responsible for that, something beyond his control? Also the fact that the aqueducts of Rome were not repaired and the water mills used to feed the Romans in Rome, grain and bread, was something that should have been at the top of the list, unless most had already died.
It was a variety of factors
That's true, but that the aqueducts were not fixed was at least in part Justinian's fault. He did not send enough money to his governors in Italy to take care of vital infrastructure flaws. He also picked bad governors who didn't prioritize the right things.
Interesting that this started in 535 a.d. In 536 a.d. was a volcanic winter that destroyed crops, and there were several years after that seemed to be affected by continuing eruptions. Have you looked into this as a factor that might have created or intensified conflict during this time?
A lot of earthquakes also maybe Italy is very sismic region?
Your my total hero Maiorianus. Great channel !!! This was mind blowing.
And the Column of Phocas was the final stroke, as after 40 or so years of silence, Rome died for sure.
That's also about the time the Roman Senate disappears from history, their last words being an endorsement of Phocas in I believe 603 AD.
Great video and you make a compelling argument. Always enjoy watching your videos. Keep it up.
I would love to know what really went through Justinian's mind as he completely wrecked western Roman society. I assume the ease with which he conquered the Vandals gave him a sense of confidence or even divine authority, and then sunk cost fallacy when things got hard
to quote Tacitus and a certain Celtic Caledonian chief "they create a desert and call it peace".
@@John_Pace sad that humans remain the same but now have weapons that make their job much easier
I think once everything started going down hill he probably thought he was cursed or something or at least he would have been ashamed and didn't want to be emperor anymore .
To be fair, most of the Gothic war took place after the Plague started and the Sassanids broke the "Eternal Peace" treaty. Troops were not exactly abundant.
@@John_Pace Narrative prose, hardly cemented in reality. It was meant to sound cool for the reader.
The way I see it is that the WRE ended in AD 476 but its culture survived until 541AD.
By the time of Justinian most all of the Germanic kingdoms in the former western empire were Romanized and sought good relations with Constantinople. The wars of Justinian were completely unnecessary showing either inflexibility in the imperial mindset or to keep the army busy with constant faraway wars in order to prevent its usurpation of the throne. Either way it was disastrous. I fully agree with your date of the fall.
It's easy to criticize Justinian with centuries of hindsight. He would have easily won had it not been for the plague coming out of nowhere. A unified Italy was still a major threat to the ERE. The Norman Kingdom proved to be a bane in the side of the Medieval Romans and raided their Balkan/greek possessions many times. The Ostrogoths controlling Pannonia and parts of Illyria also made this issue worse. Not to mention the Senate during the rule of Justin was practically agitating for the Romans in Constantinople to depose Theoderic and the Goths.
Justinian was a murderer at heart and a heretic.
@@justinpachi3707 Not only the plague but also the Sassanian king's unreliability towards peace treaties
You are not considering the immediate political events of the time - the wars of Justinian were all facilitated by particular circumstances. The Vandal War began because the King of the Vandals deposed and then killed his own uncle. The Gothic Wars began because the Ostrogoths deposed and killed the previous queen. Both had been personal friends of Justinian. He was not only reconquering provinces that had been illegally usurped, but also at least theoretically avenging his allies. The Vandal War and his War in Spain also both were easy wins, it was only the war in Italy that turned out to be a bad idea practically - and even then it would have gone perfectly well if Justinian had only trusted Belisarius enough to handle things.
@@threedragonstalk2123 He was a petty narcissist and an evil man.
Hi Majorian! I'm a big fan of your videos. You mentioned that the idea of Western Rome falling in 476 was a myth created at the time of Justinian. I was recently working on a project on the battle of Adrianople, and I was looking at a 6th century historian from the time of Justinian who wrote after describing the fall of Romulus Augustulus- "Thus too the Western empire and the lordship of the Roman people which, in the seven hundred and ninth year after the foundation of the city, Octavian Augustus began to hold as the first of the Augusti, perished with this Augustulus, in the five hundred twenty-second year of the succeeding emperors of the realm, Gothic kings thenceforth holding Rome." Thought it was pretty interesting, and might support your evidence. It's in his book Romana at section 345 if you're interested.
I think that when people talk about the fall of Rome in 476, they're not talking about the destruction or decay of the city, but when it fell as a political and state actor. There was no longer a western Roman Emperor, there was a barbarian king who had taken power by force. Although Odoacer subjected his authority to the eastern Emperor, he and his successors were not recognized as legitimate Roman rulers. So the things mentioned in this video are a result of that; the fall of Rome didn't happen in a single day, but everything that happened over the years which were part of that process are tied to the disposing of Romulus.
I'd love a coop with Schwerpunkt. His Late Antiquity content seriously rocks
Bruh Schwerpunkt we know it's you. You keep shilling your channel on the comments of every history channel
@@Chaika1974seriously😂?
We need a movie for the Gothic Wars, showing so many amazing things that were destroyed in Rome.
Rome was destroyed from within by having no policing of people and institutions for believing of not being corrupt. The institution of Rome itself, still leaves as witnesses are the symbolism of west republics today as well as some organizations stemming from the roman colleges (the latter organizations continue the tradition of corruption today).
@harlockmbb The Goths, divided into two tribes the Ostrogoths led by the Germanic military elites clan Amal, and the Visigoths led by the Balto clan, occasionally intermarried. If you mean Alaric Balto's sacking of Rome in 410 ad, his original intent had not been to destroy Rome, but to negotiate settling his people,which went awry. His eventual decision to pillage didn't include horrendous destruction, nor deaths. As a Christian he wouldn't and didn't burn or destroy churches. I've seen no accounts except fictitious, or click bait literature which allude to the Visigoths causing many deaths. That kind of fake history I expect of a people labelled "barbarian." We are talking about Rome as the arrogant USA of it's time and quite willing to victimise Germans, just like happens to US national minorities today in "America." Furthermore Alaric freed some 12.000 or more Goth slaves held in Rome. It's interesting the cultural proprietary sentiment I see in The postings concerning things Roman, some of it quite maudlin. Alaric moved south from Rome and died probably of malaria in the far southern tip of Italia. His people dammed a river, buried him allegedly with his treasure under the river bed, and allowed the water to flow over it again.
It's shocking how much content can be made just from the scarce sources of the late western roman empire, which goes to show how complex and interesting it is, I hope Maiorianus plans to shift to Eastern Rome soon.
I thought this was a fairly known thesis since Justinian's so called renovatio imperii caused more damage and permanently fractured what remained of cultural and political entity of WRE as you explained more in detail in the video. For all the victories and success of Justinian's many campaigns and long reign he inherently left a huge trail of devastation behind him that it's a miracle Eastern half even continued to exist, perhaps you could make a video regarding aftermath of Justinian's plague and also explain Justinian's machinations how he managed to keep the empire together and prevent outbreak of a total civil war or rather how did he manage to keep the populace happy considering not only millions died due to plague but also his wars costed Rome a lot of money. I never see this chapter of Roman history talked about.
The plague and the volcanic eruptions did 99% of the damage.
Now that I listened to your argument I need to reconsider my interpretation of that question in history.
Thanks!
The fall of the Roman Empire was May 29, 1453, the date of the conquest of Constantinople by the Turkish-Ottomans. It was 2206 years of civilization.
I came here to also comment that 🙌🤪
Nope, Trebizond was still around; also the empire fell in 1204 during the 4th Crusade. But obviously, we’re talking about the Western Roman Empire.
Well argued piece, thank you :-)
They had a rare moment were everything went wrong at the same big war + plague + famine caused by volcanic eruption these things happened every few centuries. but its very rare for all of that to happen at once maybe once every few millennia. it was probably similar with the bronze age collapse when you also had a mix of rare natural disasters during a very war like period .
eu amo esse canal, foi aqui que eu finalmente compreendi como que surgiu a idade média ..
I like this one. It challenges us to ask ourselves what does it mean to 'fall?' Is 'fall' a third person description or a first person description? If we call ourselves Romans, live in Rome, speak Latin, practice Roman traditions, practices, and religions...are we not Roman? If the new power base takes over and says "you fell," does that make it so? Who gets to say who and when a 'civilization' falls and what if we can find many contradictions to their criteria?
Thanks
For a moment, I thought this was posted 10 months ago.
Why did it have to end like this😢 it could have been so good. I wish there was a way to show Justinian this video!
I really love your material, and I love that your perspective is both firm and with conviction, and also willing to deviate from the status quo way of thinking about late roman and early medieval history. I too wonder what the world would be like had Justinian not been a bloodthirsty freak
In.my humble opinion the Roman Empire ended with the Islamic conquest
Merci!
Is it an interesting view point. I suppose a comparison that could be made is we do not consider China or rather the Chinese imperial system to have ended just because it wasn't ruled over by a native dynasty. For example the Mongolian Yuan dynasty and Manchu Qing are still counted as one of the dynasties of Chinese history (and some like the Yuan and i think later Jin ruled parts of their empire separately too) so why should be consider the Roman Empire to have fallen just because it wasn't rules by a roman? So i think your definitely got very valid argument.
Also, successive Chinese dynasties managed to do what Justinian failed to do, namely bringing all the territories of the old empire back together again. Imperial China and Imperial Rome do make for very interesting comparisons.
Another good show
fascinating video as always, I believe that the real game changer was the 541 Great Plague. Of course the wars in Italy did a lot of damage, but the lenght of the wars was due to the Plague. The population of the Mediterranean cities simply evaporated
Amazing. What you say makes so much more sense than everything I have heard elsewhere. Perhaps if Justinian had given his full support to Belisarius, things would have turned out better for Italy.
EXACTLY
0:09 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE MENTIONED LETS GO 💅✨😫🎉👏
I'm not a "romaboo" or whatever you call yourself, but I do love myself some history, and I hate "pop history" that oversimplifies and often just plain gets things wrong. I love history material like yours that attempts to be as nuanced and well researched as possible. I love your videos about the romano-gothic period, I hope to see more!
Let’s gooo another vid!!!!!!
1848. When schools started teaching nationalist languages instead of Latin, that was it.
Es wäre super, wenn du in den Kommentaren oder der Beschreibung jeweils Quellen oder Literaturhinweise geben würdest. Danke!
Es wäre super auf Englisch zu schreiben. Ich glaube der liebe maiorianus kann kann barbarisch
@@viktorpe8065 Ich bin in nicht gezwungen, mit einer Person, die des Deutschen mächtig ist auf englisch zu kommunizieren. Wenn man sich durch die simple Nutzung der Deutschen Sprache, eine Antwort wäre ja wohlgemerkt auch auf Englisch möglich, angegriffen fühlt und eine Kommunikation deshalb nicht zustande kommt, ist das halt so. Was ist mit Menschen, die eben kein Englisch sprechen, weil es ihnen nie beigebracht wurde? Die kriegen einfach keine Antwort? @Maiorianus
Dear Keeper Of The Flame Of Majorian: Could you do a video on the relationship between Rome/Ravenna and the German states between, let's say, 450-568 A.D. Questions abound such as -Was there trade? -Was it still possible to travel between polities on the Roman highways? Were they kept in good repair? Was there an uptick in highwaymen and brigands? Also -Can you explain how the German states either continued or changed local Roman Government, Economy, and Culture? -When and why did the system of feudalism emerge?
It was the day Majorian died
To me the real point is that the status of Theoderik was subemperor despite not accepting th official title and that this was not merely symbolically
In my opinion Venice is a remnant of Rome. Its historical origins, architectural influence, cultural richness, political heritage, and integration with Roman culture all contribute to its undeniable connection to Rome. Venice's foundation in response to the fall of the Western Roman Empire, its resemblance to Roman urban planning and architecture, its inheritance of Roman cultural and artistic traditions, its development as an independent city-state with a similar political system, and its integration into the Roman province of Venetia et Histria all highlight its role as a remnant of Rome. In fact Venice is not just a remnant, but a vibrant embodiment of Rome's influence, preserving its legacy through the ages.
Venice is as much a "remnant" of Constantinople as of Rome, which, together, are the same tradition. It grew and prospered under the Eastern empire's protection and patronage, and eagerly copied its culture and practices. St. Mark's Cathedral is a direct imitation of the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, later adorned with the artworks stolen by the Venetians during the 1204 sack of the city, mostly famously the four horses of the Hippodrome.
yes, and the man who abolished the Venice Republic had his emperor's coronation and established his empire modeled on the ancient roman.
Venice raped Constantinople and plundered the city.
These are some very good points. Yet,as to government structure,San Marino can be said to be another remnant of Rome
Romanian principalities had cultural, political, religious, military and architectural influences from the Eastern Roman Empire. The two metropolitan Orthodox Churches of Moldavia and Wallachia were the only one's with the privilege from Constantinople to crown the rulers with Byzantine imperial rite. Then, both Principalities United and formed Romania, and Romania is the only independent state that still has an endonym descendant that of Rōmānus.
Is there an video on the pretorian guard on this channel?
Between Justinian the "NOT" Great did not embark on a journey to restore the Roman Empire in North Africa and Western Europe and the Phocas failed to assassinate Emperor Maurice, which one will bring the better outcome for the Roman Empire?
Amazing to me that despite the natural disasters (volcanic eruptions, famine and plague) at or around 536, humans continued to wage brutal war.
Or maybe it's because of it. In the recent years of corona and climate change, the same thing is happening.
There could also be an argument made for the fall of ancient rome to be in the year 603 when the last recorded Roman Senate had met. Regardless, both years are in the reign of Justinian so it's really splitting hairs.
How did the Goths manage to put up a nearly 30 year fight? How did they get the funds, resources, and manpower to sustain a fight that long?
same way USA sustains funds for 150 years of wars. it was their main focus
Quite likely they enjoyed quite a bit of local support. It wasn't just a handful of barbarians and no one else.
Justinian, Justinian, what have you done, Sir ?
justinian and belisarius were idiots they destroyed Italy
You may like this classic alternate history book from 1939 about a time traveller who saves the Romano-Gothic Empire from Justinian: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lest_Darkness_Fall
The argument being made that they continued some Roman administrative practices doesn't change the fact that the ostrsagoths, Visigoths, Vandals etc., were Germanic tribes, not Romans, so yes the Western Empire fell in 476.
Maybe we should ask the man in the Vatican who has the Pontus Maxiumus ring.
The way I see it, the Goths and Visigoths were Roman vassals and thus still provinces of the Empire. The trouble comes with Justinian and the East. It seems to me Justinian dreamed of a reunited empire, not just partial provinces. He also probably neeeded to busy the army. Once again it is an example of Romans doing what Romans do best, fight themselves.
The issue is whether they were taxed. Or gave something equivalent to a tax. Just calling yourself a 'vassal' but not giving anything of note doesn't have much practical value. It boils down to money. It seems Justinian concluded that whatever status those barbarians claimed it wasn't bringing in any money.
@florinivan6907 True. Roman vassals but mostly lip service.
Personal view: I don't think what was called the "western" Roman empire survived the collapse of the Severans. There were periods of stability under Diocletian and Constantine, possibly under Aurelian, but otherwise it was gone.
I think this is a good dating for the fall of the Western Empire. But the Roman Empire, broadly construed, did not finally vanish until May 29, 1453.
The Roman Empire actually fell twice with the second being January 10th, 2024 when Nick Saban retired from Alabama as head coach
I like the argument, but why not 568 as the date, when the Lombards show up to fill the vacuum? Delivering the coup de grace, as it were.
1898 the defeat of the last remnant of the Roman Empire, Spain in the Spanish America war
I would put the 'fall of Rome' as the actual date that the Eastern Empire lost control for the last time of the city of Rome. Gibbon of course put it as the last Emperor in Rome itself. The culture and the population clearly died in Rome with the destruction of the Aqueducts and the plague. One could also argue that the fall of Ravenna by the Eastern Empire, or even the last part of southern Italy as another date. Venice Republic could be another candidate.
The Eastern Empire lost control of Rome and Ravenna for the last time in the same year - 751. It's interesting that nobody ever seems to propose this as a date for the fall of the Empire. It seems like an obvious candidate.
It already happened after 388 A.D.! After Magnus Maximus, Uther Pendragon (Victor) were killed by Theodosius and his frankish allies under Arbogast.
"Consuls were elected" How did that work, exactly? Were they just appointed by a council of local rich men or the Emperor/King? Or was there some slight pretense of the poor getting a say?
I suppose Justinian has a lot in common with Suleiman .. both were reviewed as great emperors / sultans and when you look at the fact you see they were upheld by brilliant generals whom they eventually treated poorly or even betrayed. Both men led to disasters, after their reigns.
🤔Resembles me something in modern days...
The collapse of the imperial government preceded the collapse of traditionally known Roman society, which was destroyed not by Germanic invaders, but by wars of reconquest. It might be an interesting thought experiment to ask, what if Justinian and Belisarius had been preoccupied with the East? A less successful Battle of Dara could have preserved Roman society for at least a few more decades.
Incredible. Technically though AD 476 works well.
I'd agree as a punctuation event. I see parallels with the end of the US dated to 9/11/2001. As time goes on more people will realize it.
@@marcv2648 you might be correct
Gibbon called the Roman Catholic Church "the ghost of the Roman Empire sitting on its tombstone", so you might say that the phantom empire continues---and even can claim about a billion "subjects" worldwide...
Wow! This is a perspective I am hearing for the first time, and, as much as I love Justinian and consider him one of the greatest emperors, I must agree that the Gothic War was a great mistake! If he had at least trusted Belissarius and sent him the reinforcements he needed, at least the war would have ended swiftly and the damages would have been minimal. But now, Italy lies exhuasted in ruins, and the resources of the overall Empire are depleted, opening the door to the Lombards into the former and the Persians into the latter. If only Justinian had let well enough alone and focused on consolidating the Empire internally, stopping with the retaking of North Africa...
"The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions." - _That's all this Princeps has to say on the matter._
I am tempted to say it fell when Edward Gibbon stopped scribbling about it. I do confess however that I have probably learned more about late Roman history from this channel than I ever did from the interminable scribblings of Mr Gibbon.
🤯
pls do coop with Schwerpunkt
1453 was the real date of the fall of the Roman Empire (fall of Constantinople, "Nova Roma"), keep in mind guys
so not gon but under new management
There are many dates for the Fall of the (Western) Roman Empire. And many dates can be somehow justified. But what is definitely true: The Ostrogoth Kingdom is a kingdom of Antiquity. And Justinian finished this epoch in Italy. Because the with Langobards the Middle Ages started in Italy. And the Langobard invasion was only because of Justinian.
So in short Justinian who wanted to reunite Rome destroyed Rome not surprised especially considering he was a Christian Christians have done that a lot especially in their recent history namely the past 500 years coughs “Americas the Indian subcontinent Asia Africa” coughs thx for this informative video it was interesting to learn keep up the great work peace.
One cannot attach a date for the collapse of Rome, because it took centuries. Much like the collapse of United States, which started a while back and will continue for a long time forward. If we insist on a date, I would say 300AD to 700 AD. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Eastern Roman Empire put up a pretty good fight even to 1000AD.
When the US Empire will fall?!?😂😂😂
It already has. Similar to Rome, the peons just don't know it yet.
no the us is not rome neither is or was russia or germany.
@@user-yf6kh3ss3p US have only one thing that keep people together: "freedom". Once that will disappear (and they work hard to make it disappear) US will crash like the glass in pieces.
Rome...
Byzantine (roman) Empire as part of the religious structure of the Christian Faith stopped existing first in 800 then finally with the schism. They remained roman solely on identity grounds
Actually the final fall of Rome came in 1453 and that was it,great explanation my friend!
Start of the early Renaissance in Europe?
@@paulfri1569Rennaisance always represented the end of the Roman Empire
The West today?
Romans where coping hard if they thought for one second that their empire still existed in the 5th century under gothic kings. If the US suddenly collapsed id being willing to bet Americans would still be playing football and watch baseball. Where romans serving in the Army or Navy under the gothic kingdom. I didn't think so nor where they commanding armies. They were subjects of the Gothic Kings. The decline of Italy was not some unique event the same happened to Roman Greece, Thrace, Balkans, Syria, Palestine. Even the Roman Senate in Constantinople disappeared.
but they lived better before the invasion.
The Fall of the Western Roman Empire is traditionally dated to the year 476 AD. This is when the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain. However, it is important to note that the actual decline and fall of the Roman Empire was a complex process that occurred over a long period of time, with various factors contributing to its eventual collapse. The date of 476 AD is often seen as a symbolic point marking the end of ancient Rome and the beginning of the Middle Ages in Europe.
The campaign in Italy was a strategic mistake with huge implications for the east and west. Without this campaign, the east would have stopped the slavs from settling into the balkans and the danube would have remained its border.
The imperial issue of transfer of power was never solved. Justinian V the goths was in a way a civil war - cultural Romans V cultural Romans.
1920s.....
When you start bending the rules of what the Roman state was then one date is good as any other. The truth is the goths had no legal continuity with the previous Emperors in the west. The only true Empire past 476A.D. was the East and that Empire fell with the final fall of Constantinople.
This is a well-produced and researched video but I don't see your logic. The Kingdom of the Goths shared cultural and institutional continuity with the Western Roman Empire, you could call it a successor state, but it wasn't the Western Empire, so how could the fall of the Kingdom also be the fall of the Empire? By this logic aren't the HRE and the Ottomans equally the continuation of the Roman Empire? The Gothic Kingdom was a new regime, with a new aristocracy, that styled itself differently. There was still a Roman Empire, yes - the Eastern Empire, but there was no Emeperor of the West, so how could there be an Empire of the West?
1453
This means the west fell to the east.
476 is right
I think that the decadence started when Rome turned herself into an empire and lost the freedom and vigor of a republic. Rome started the good times made by rude men, starting to fabricate new weak men........... Weak not only phisically, but, narcisists, egicentric, edonists......
1917
THERE IS NO REAL DATE FOR THE FALL OF THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE. THE EMPIRE´S STABILITY ROSE AND FELL MANY TIMES BETWEEN PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN AND MITHRAS RELIGION. EVERY THING IN ROMAN CULTURE WAS IN A STEADY STATE OF DECAY AND REBUILDING UNTIL THE 6TH CENTURY ROMAN CULTURE STILL EXISTS TILL TODAY, AND EVEN MORE IN EVIDENCE IN THE 19TH CENTURY.
The legend says that when Justinianus died, the voice of satan was heard in the palace saying: "This is my beloved son!"
Roman Empire fell when it accepted Christianity as it's state religion. That's the true date of fall of Roman Empire.
When did the British Empire 'fall'? 1942 (the fall of Singapore), 1947 (the end of the Raj), 1952 (the death of the last King Emperor), 1956 (the disaster of the Suez Canal) or 1960 (the Winds of Change)? The truth is .. none and yet all of these dates; it was finalised as 'over' effectively (as a going imperial, commercial, and financial concern) with the Rhodesia Crisis, 1966 .. only it wasn't - as The Aden Crisis, the Falklands War, and the Invasion of Iraq (etc) indicate (in terms of a shady yet living entity). ;o)
I'd say with the end of the Raj. It was the linchpin of their empire when it came to resources, population, and the credibility if the colonial model. It was also after the loss of India that saw George VI's actual title demoted from "King and Emperor" to merely king.
@@Littlegoatpaws I'd agree with you; the British public was rather shocked to wake up and find that their ruling class had already quite given up on the Empire .. as a going concern (a money-spinner not a financial burden). Rhodesia simply noted the final resolution .. the British government would not and could not afford to maintain imperial control over recalcitrant colonists (the Falkland Campaign merely showed how fragile the remnant might be .. without an iron-willed imperial resolve .. to look otherwise, an expensive business btw). ;o)
@@TheLeonhammyes, similar situation with South Africa as well, there was a big divorce after instituting Apartheid. As the few profitable colonies sloughed away it became more financially difficult to hold the ones that weren't as easy to sustain like Gold Coast and the like. Then there was the whole Suez crisis involvong its Arab vassals. And after the war Canadians and Australians began viewing themselves more distinct from the old mother country as well. It was a slow process from world spanning empire to a commonwealth of a few island microstates that only stay because they have no resources and can't stage their own strategic defences. But there were major political and cultural events that date the actual "fall" to around 1946 or so.
@@Littlegoatpaws i agree that was the beginning of the end of British empire.
Justinian was no good