Many different people throughout history have been described as “the last Roman emperor.” You may then be left wondering, “Who really was the last Roman emperor?” Unfortunately, a direct and concise answer to this question is impossible, because the answer depends entirely on who you think counts as a “Roman emperor.” The fact is that there are all kinds of different people who could potentially be considered the “last emperor of the Roman Empire,” many of whom were not even Roman.
Diocletian
The emperor Diocletian, who was proclaimed emperor on 20 November 284 and ruled in various capacities—first as sole emperor and later as senior augustus—until he chose to retire and step down from public office on 1 May 305, was the last emperor of the Roman Empire to rule the entire Empire at a time when Rome was still the de facto capital.
During his reign, Diocletian set up four administrative centers in Nicomedia, Mediolanum, Sirmium, and Trevorum. These became the new capitals of the Roman Empire. Later, other cities were picked for capitals, such as (eventually) Ravenna and Constantinople.
During and after Diocletian’s reign, the city of Rome retained much official and ceremonial significance, but it was no longer the center of actual administration. Although there were many people after Diocletian who held the title of “Roman emperor” and the people of the Roman Empire certainly still thought of themselves as Romans long afterwards, some people might question just how “Roman” the Empire truly was after Rome ceased to be the capital and center of governance.
ABOVE: Roman marble head of Diocletian, crowned with laurels
Theodosius I
The last emperor to rule a unified Roman Empire that controlled all of the traditional Roman territories of the Mediterranean was Theodosius I, who ruled the whole Roman Empire from 15 May 392 AD until his death on 17 January 395 AD. Upon his death, rule over the Empire was divided between his two sons, Honorius (who ruled the West) and Arcadius (who ruled the East). The Empire was never again united under a single ruler. Therefore, one could make a serious argument that Theodosius I was the last true Roman emperor.
Of course, the gotcha here is that the Roman Empire had already been divided into separate parts ruled by different emperors multiple times before Theodosius I was ever even born, so the division of the Roman Empire upon Theodosius I’s death between his two sons would not have seemed like particularly era-defining to anyone who was alive at the time. To them, it just seemed like business-as-usual; dividing the Empire between two rulers seemed like a traditional way of running things.
It is only in retrospect that we, looking back, can see anything particularly remarkable about the division of the empire upon the death of Theodosius I because we know, in retrospect, that the Empire would never be unified again under a single ruler.
ABOVE: Ceremonial silver dish depicting Theodosius I enthroned, made in Constantinople in around 388 AD
Julius Nepos
The last emperor of the western portion of the Roman Empire who was accepted by the emperor of the eastern portion of the Roman Empire as a legitimate ruler was the emperor Julius Nepos, who ruled as de facto and de jure emperor of the western Roman Empire from June 474 AD until 28 August 475 AD, when he was deposed by Orestes and forced to flee from the Roman capital of Ravenna to Dalmatia. He remained the de jure Roman emperor until his death in 480 AD, but, for the last five years of his de jure reign, he was only the de facto ruler of Dalmatia and he had absolutely no power in Ravenna, which was the capital of the western Roman Empire at the time.
ABOVE: Gold trimessis with a portrait of Julius Nepos in profile
Romulus Augustus
The last person to hold the title of emperor of the western Roman Empire in antiquity and actually have de facto power in the capital city of Ravenna was Romulus Augustus (often known derisively by the diminutive “Romulus Augustulus”).
Romulus Augustus was installed by his father Orestes as a puppet king on 31 October 475 AD. He was deposed by the Germanic king Odoacer on 4 September 476 AD. He was only about sixteen years old at the time of his deposition and he was permitted to live out the rest of his life in exile in Campania.
Although Romulus Augustus is the individual who is most often described as the “last emperor of the western Roman Empire,” it should be noted that his rule was never accepted by the eastern emperor as legitimate and Julius Nepos was still ruling as emperor of the western Roman Empire in Dalmatia for roughly four years after Romulus Augustus was deposed.
ABOVE: Gold trimessis with a profile portrait of Romulus Augustus
Some comments about the Byzantine Empire
While the western part of the Roman Empire—the part where Latin was the predominate language and where the city of Rome itself was located—collapsed in the fifth century AD, the eastern part of the Roman Empire survived for another millennium afterwards and, at some points in its history, even managed to thrive.
The people of the eastern Roman Empire still thought of themselves as “Ῥωμαῖοι” (Rhōmaîoi), or “Romans,” and they still called their empire the “Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων” (Vasileía Rhōmaíōn), or “Empire of the Romans,” even long after the fall of the west. They had very good justification for calling themselves this, since they could legitimately trace their history and their government institutions back to the earlier Roman Empire with direct, indisputable continuity.
Though the inhabitants of the surviving eastern portion of the Roman Empire identified their nationality as “Roman,” their culture was undeniably mostly Greek. The predominate language of the eastern Roman Empire was Greek, its capital was the city of Constantinople, and, for most of its history, it did not rule the city of Rome itself.
None of these things necessarily make the inhabitants of the eastern empire less “Roman,” though, since the categories of “Greek” and “Roman” were not necessarily mutually exclusive and, even when the Roman Empire was at its classical height, the inhabitants of its eastern portion were still mostly culturally Greek. In other words, the “Greekness” of the later eastern empire was not a novel development in any sense. I personally see no reason why the inhabitants of the eastern Roman Empire cannot be accurately described as both “Greek” and “Roman.”
Most modern historians typically refer to the eastern part of the Roman Empire that survived after the fall of the western Roman Empire as the “Byzantine Empire.” The Byzantines themselves did sometimes use the Greek word Βυζαντινοί (Byzantinoí) to refer specifically to the inhabitants of the city of Constantinople, but this term only applied to inhabitants of the city itself and people did not think of “Byzantine” as a nationality. Consequently, the use of the term “Byzantine” is sometimes seen as controversial.
ABOVE: Map from Wikimedia Commons showing the city of Constantinople as it was in the Byzantine period
Justinian I
The last emperor of the eastern Roman Empire who spoke Latin as his native language was Justinian I (ruled 527 – 565 AD), who is known today for his massive construction projects and his largely successful (albeit extremely bloody and destructive) efforts to reconquer the territories in the west that the Roman Empire had once ruled.
Justinian I is also responsible for having brutally persecuted the remaining practitioners of traditional Greco-Roman polytheistic religion who were still living within his realm. In around 528 AD, Justinian I issued a decree for all practitioners of traditional polytheism to either convert to Christianity or suffer banishment as a result. He also shut down the Neoplatonic Akademia in Athens, which had been being run by Neoplatonic philosophers who openly practiced the old religion.
The Neoplatonic philosophers Damaskios of Syria (lived c. 458 – after c. 538 AD), Simplikios of Kilikia (lived c. 490 – c. 560 AD), and a few others, who were among the last individuals known to have been open practitioners of traditional Greco-Roman polytheism, fled to the Sassanian Empire, seeking sanctuary at the court of King Khosrow I.
These Neoplatonic philosophers were eventually allowed to return to the Byzantine Empire to practice their religion unmolested as a result of a peace treaty between Khosrow I and Justinian I in around 533 AD. Nonetheless, after the reign of Justinian I, open practitioners of traditional religion disappear from the historical record almost entirely.
ABOVE: Mosaic portrait of the emperor Justinian I from the Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna, Italy
Herakleios
The Byzantine emperor Herakleios rose to power in 610 AD through a rebellion against the widely-loathed usurper Phokas. Herakleios was the one who abolished the use of Latin imperial titles in favor of Greek ones. This is often seen as an acknowledgement that Latin was no longer the language of the Roman Empire, which was a fact that had been both true and apparent for quite some time.
It was also during Herakleios’s reign that the Byzantines lost control of Egypt and many of their territories in Asia to the Rashidun Caliphate. After Herakleios’s reign, the Roman Empire never regained control of the territories that were lost, which remained under the rule of various Islamic empires for over a millennium thereafter.
The loss of these important territories played a profound role in shaping the Roman Empire in future centuries. With these losses, the Roman Empire effectively lost its ability to legitimately claim that it ruled the Mediterranean. As a result, the empire became more geographically centered around the Aegean and Black Seas and around the city of Constantinople in particular.
It was also during the reign of Herakleios or the reign of one of his immediate successors that the old Roman provincial system came to an end and the Byzantine theme system developed in its place. Under the provincial system, provinces were governed by civil administrators, but, under the theme system, civil administrators were greatly reduced and those that remained were made subordinate to military leaders known as στρατηγοί (strategoí). The theme system would remain a characteristic feature of the Byzantine Empire for centuries thereafter.
ABOVE: Gold solidus bearing a portrait of the emperor Herakleios
Alexios V Doukas
The Byzantine Empire suffered a terrible setback at the beginning of the thirteenth century. In April 1204, the city of Constantinople was sacked by participants in the Fourth Crusade. As I describe in this article I wrote about the fate of the Athena Parthenos, the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders was particularly brutal. After the sack, the Byzantine Empire was largely dismantled and most of its former territories were divided up between various Crusaders.
The last emperor of the eastern Roman Empire to rule before the siege and sack of Constantinople by the participants of the Fourth Crusade was Alexios V Doukas, who ruled for only a few months in 1204. Alexios V Doukas seized power through a coup on 5 February 1204 and reigned until his death during the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders on 12 April 1204.
Although the Byzantines later recaptured the city of Constantinople in 1261, for several decades, Alexios V Doukas was the last Byzantine emperor to have de facto rule in Constantinople. Therefore, if you do not count the restored Byzantine Empire as the same empire, that would make Alexios V Doukas the last Roman emperor.
ABOVE: Illustration of Alexios V Doukas from a fourteenth-century Byzantine illuminated manuscript of the history of Niketas Choniates
Konstantinos XI Palaiologos
The restored Byzantine Empire lasted for nearly two hundred years after the recapture of Constantinople, but it never regained the same strength and territory that it had possessed before the Crusaders sacked Constantinople and took away most of the empire’s territories.
The last emperor of the Byzantine Empire was Konstantinos XI Palaiologos, who ascended to the throne on 6 January 1449 and reigned until he was killed in battle on 29 May 1453 during the capture of the city of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks, who were led by Sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror.
There were other claimants to the Byzantine throne after Konstantinos XI Palaiologos’s death, but none of these claimants ever held real power. Of all the candidates for the title of “last Roman emperor,” Konstantinos XI Palaiologos probably has the strongest claim.
ABOVE: Miniature portrait of Konstantinos XI Palaiologos, the last emperor of the Byzantine Empire
Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor
While the western Roman Empire collapsed in the fifth century AD, on 25 December 800 AD, Charlemagne, King of the Franks, was crowned as emperor of the “Holy Roman Empire” by Pope Leo III. The Holy Roman Empire was supposed to be a revival of the western Roman Empire. Therefore, another serious contender for the title of “last Roman emperor” is Francis II, the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, who ascended to the throne on 5 July 1792 and dissolved the Holy Roman Empire on 6 August 1806, thereby abdicating his title as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
The problem we run into here is that, while the Holy Roman Empire claimed to be a restoration of the western Roman Empire, it was not particularly Roman in any real respect. Culturally, the Holy Roman Empire was predominately Germanic. The people of the Holy Roman Empire never spoke Latin as a living vernacular and, for almost its entire history, the Holy Roman Empire did not have control of the city of Rome. Furthermore, most of the inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire did not generally think of themselves as “Romans.”
ABOVE: Portrait of Francis II, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, painted in 1830 by Leopold Kupelwieser
Sultan Mehmed VI Vahideddin
Things get even more twisted, though. As I mentioned earlier, the Byzantine Empire was conquered by the Ottoman Turks under the leadership of Mehmed II the Conqueror in 1453, but, after the conquest, Mehmed II took the title of Kayser-i Rûm (“Caesar of Rome”) by right of conquest. All the Ottoman sultans who came after him took the title as well. The Ottoman sultans were recognized as the legitimate rulers of the Roman Empire by the Greek Orthodox Church and by the inhabitants of the former Byzantine Empire.
The last sultan of the Ottoman Empire, the last Kayser-i Rûm, was Sultan Mehmed VI Vahideddin, who ascended to the throne on 4 July 1918 and was deposed on 1 November 1922 with the abolition of the Ottoman sultanate. Therefore, Sultan Mehmed VI Vahideddin has a real claim to the title of “last emperor of the Roman Empire.”
Of course, it is hard to see the Ottoman Empire as “Roman” in any significant way. The Ottomans spoke Turkish, not Latin. The Ottoman Empire never ruled the city of Rome in any capacity at any point in its entire history. Finally, the Ottomans thought of themselves as Turks, never as “Romans.” Their ruler just happened to hold the title of Kayser-i Rûm.
ABOVE: Photograph of Sultan Mehmed VI of the Ottoman Empire, taken in 1918
King Konstantinos II of Greece
Up until half a century ago, the modern nation-state of Greece was ruled by kings. These kings held the Greek title of βασιλεύς (vasiléfs), which is the exact same title that was held by Byzantine emperors. Some of these kings intentionally styled themselves as Roman emperors; Konstantinos I of Greece (ruled 1868 – 1923) notably preferred to style himself as Konstantinos XII, since he considered all the Byzantine emperors named “Constantine” his forebears.
The last king of Greece was Konstantinos II, who ascended to the throne in March 1964 upon the death of his father King Pavlos. During his reign, he was sometimes referred to as “Konstantinos XIII,” in line with his grandfather’s preferred numbering.
On 21 April 1967, a group of right-wing mid-ranking military officers initiated a coup d’état, which overthrew the government, but which left the king nominally still in power. On 13 December 1967, following an attempted countercoup, Konstantinos II was forced to flee the country. He remained the de jure king of Greece for several years, despite living in exile in Britain with little power in his home country.
A referendum held on 29 July 1973 while the junta was still in power formally abolished the monarchy and established Greece as a republic. After the fall of the junta, it was decreed that all legal actions under the junta were invalid. Consequently, a second referendum was held on 8 December 1974. This referendum confirmed the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of Greece as a democracy.
In 1994, the Greek government passed a law that stripped Konstantinos of his Greek citizenship, passport, and property, stipulating that his passport would not be returned unless he adopted a surname as a commoner. He was still able to visit Greece, however, using a Danish diplomatic passport. After living mostly outside of Greece for forty-six years, Konstantinos returned to live in Greece permanently as a private citizen in 2013. He has refused to adopt a surname.
ABOVE: Photograph of Konstantinos II and his wife Anne-Marie at the wedding of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden in June 2010
Pope Francis???
One of the many titles of the emperors of the Roman Empire was Pontifex Maximus. Eventually, this became one of the titles of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope rules in Vatican City, which is in Rome. The Pope even speaks Latin (albeit Ecclesiastical Latin, which is rather different from Classical Latin, but still the same language).
Historically, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church wielded immense authority in western Europe and, even today, the Pope still has a great deal of international political influence. Honestly, as silly and ridiculous as it sounds, even though he does not officially hold the title of “emperor,” the current Pope may have just as much a claim to the title of “last Roman emperor” as half the people on this list—or at least until a new Pope takes his place.
I would not consider the Pope a “Roman emperor” myself in any real sense. After all, unlike all of the people I have listed above, the Pope does not actually even claim to hold the title of “emperor.” All I am saying is that there are similarities between the role of a Roman emperor and the role of the Pope and that, depending on how far you are willing to stretch the definition of “Roman emperor,” the Pope might qualify to a certain extent.
ABOVE: Photograph of Pope Francis, the current Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, taken in 2017
Conclusion
No one really agrees on who has the best claim to the title of “last emperor of the Roman Empire.” For what it is worth, I personally do not think that that title really accurately describes anyone. The end of the Roman Empire was a gradual process of the empire gradually becoming less Roman.
No one would ever question the Diocletian was a Roman emperor. Almost no one would question that Theodosius I was a Roman emperor. Most people would probably consider Julius Nepos a Roman emperor. As we move along later and later in history, though, the claimants to the title of “Roman emperor” become less and less Roman. Finally, we get to people like Sultan Mehmed VI Vahideddin, who was not really Roman at all.
Part of the problem is that the idea of the Roman Empire looms so large in the imagination that many, many rulers throughout history who have had little connection to Rome have wanted to stake a claim to that idea and have found various ways of justifying their claims.
This is great.
Thank you so much! I am glad you appreciate my work. Thank you for leaving a comment!
It’s the political environment that defines who was the last Roman emperor.When the city of Constantinople fell at 1204, the political environment changed administrative center,but the line still continue legally.Even the overthrow of an emperor can be legal since the organs of the Roman political system agree to crown a person without claim (Centurion Phokas).Considering the above and the fact that the political form we call Roma and not the people that can change according to various circumstances(like being conquered by foreigners)survived in the east, it is clear that the last Roman ruler is Constantine Palaiologos,the Komnenos of Trebizond although Roman in political identity they abandoned the claim and kept only the title emperor of all Anatolia.The western remants,like the Pope have nothing in common with Rome(Glycerius’s state in modern France could be considered as Roman),but only slightly similarities.New political system in the city of Rome,could start a new Roman state but not the traditional Roman,this is why the Byzantines called the Italians, Latins and not Romans.Example of the above is Venice,the city was always Roman,BUT in time they decided for their own reasons and interests to promote their autonomous system of goverment into independent,so under this new political form they share no connection to the organic Roman core,they made something on their own,something new,something Venetian! Do not confuse the plebeians of Rome with the Romans,the nobles created Rome not the low class,unfortunately this was the situation back then and we have to count it,so these nobles adopted greek early on,and it is laughable to think the eastern part as alien cause they didn’t speak Latin,in the end the southern italians took the Roman identity centuries before the western provinces,among those southern italians were greeks and possibly they were the 50%-60%,still the traditional Rome of Sulla and Marius had no problem to consider the greeks of southern Italy as Romans,so why should we have to count the greek culture of the Eastern Roman Empire as a non-Roman characteristic?
Syagrius’s state in modern France*
I am personally most inclined to consider Konstantinos XI Palaiologos the last emperor of the Roman Empire, but I think it is a complicated question, because the “Roman Empire” is not a single definite thing; it’s more of an idea that keeps changing. Every generation has a new idea of what the “Roman Empire” is.
Thanks for this article. I personally agree that Constantine Palaiologos was the last Roman emperor, and Pope Francis has the second best claim – after all, he actually rules a bit of Rome.
You did miss the Romanov’s claim to the Roman empire. Some of the currently alive pretenders still use the title, however silly.
Well thats like saying the queen of england cannot be considered the queen of england becasue her family were german. If you take the thrown – you are the ruler! Its as simple as that. Anything elese is xenophoic, elitist racism. A ruler might not be love by their people or considered rightful ruler, but thats a matter for them to work out amongst themseleves. Likewise, they might be loved by their people and not from their culture.
Interesting. You raise some good points to think about.
In the end, I think we have to recognize that Rome evolved into different things over the years. What began as a tribal union became a unified state. This eventually became an empire. Now, in my opinion, what we have is modern states influenced by Rome in some way.
I don’t think it’s easy to say who was the last emperor. It’s irrelevant. What matters is the lasting legacy. Rome’s influence is everywhere. No emperor could have dreamed of the world we live in now.
Forget the empire. Rome has become eternal. On this planet, at least.