Rome 455, Geiserics forces sack the city killing the last of the garrisoned legions and killing the Emperor of the west roman for the final time, however its people were spared of a mass slaughter. Further the governing body the senate was spared and there were still allowed to govern. Geiseric then declared himself king of the romans of all things, he even voluntarily made himself subordinate to the emperor of the east, commonly know as the Byzantines. This event is deemed the “Fall of the Rome empire” most say this is the time rome was destroyed, or at least that the east was the last hold out.
First I’d like to state that in my personal belief truly rome was just split up into its provinces, like how the province of Italia is now Italy, or how the province of Britannia is now Britain, etc. and the reason I believe this to be true is that the regions that were conquered were ethnic and then these different people were naturalized into the system.
The effects implied where irreversible it's why all European gov’ts modernly reflect the Romans in their political hight the roman republic. Just in case you were wondering if I think rome has a successor yes all of Europe (even
…show more content…
(a perfect mix of all that are in the fold of the Empire)
However it is fun to try and pin a fall, you could argue that it fell all the way back in 509 BC when the roman king was ousted for the senate and people assemblies. Or that it’s death was between Sulla and Caesar making it an Empire. I personally think Rome was dead with the fall of the Constantinople in the East because it was the last war where one of the fighters called themselves