I am 100% convinced that the fall of the western empire is traditionally considered 476 because the emperor whose deposition caused it was called Romulus Augustulus which is like... such a perfect bookend for the empire? city founded by Romulus, turned into the empire by Augustus, and the last ruler shares a name with both of them? But this time it's an ironic echo because the empire is a shell of its former self.

Nevermind that Romulus Augustulus was a usurper who was never officially recognised and that the man he deposed was recognised as the legitimate emperor until 480.

Nevermind that the Domain of Soissons existed, a province in northern Gaul where the governer insisted that it was merely another Roman province waiting for a new emperor. The locals called it the kingdom of the romans. It existed til 486 when it was conquered by the Franks.

Nevermind that Roman culture and art and administrative structures stuck around in the west for hundreds more years! Especially in somewhere like Britain where Romano-British culture was such a huge influence on our borders that we still feel its fallout today.

It's all too easy to make history fall into neat stories. And I love the story of Rome falling in 476 because so much of why it happened echoes why Rome was such a powerhouse. But it's not really an accurate representation.