Editing Ricimer (section)

==Death and legacy==
Ricimer's rule lasted until his death of natural causes—apparently a hemorrhage on 19 August 472—six weeks after deposing Anthemius.{{sfn|Wolfram|1997|p=184}}{{efn|See: [[Cassiodorus]], [https://www.academia.edu/9926544/Cassiodorus_Chronicle_edition_and_translation ''Chronica'' 472 AD]: {{lang|la|"post XL dies defunctus est. Olybrius autem VII imperii mense vitam peregit"}} ("40 days later he died. But Olybrius ended his life in the 7th month of his reign"). Between 11 July and 19 August there were exactly 40 days using [[inclusive counting]]; {{lang|la|[[Paschale campanum]]}} [[iarchive:chronicaminorasa09momm/page/746/mode/1up|473]]: {{lang|la|"moritur Ricimer XIIII kal. Septem."}} ("Ricimer died on the 14th day before the [[kalends]] of September", i.e. 19 August); {{lang|la|[[Fasti vindobonenses priores]]}} [[iarchive:chronicaminorasa09momm/page/306/mode/1up|472]]: "defunctus est Ricimer XV kl. Septemb". ("Ricimer died on the 15th day before the kalends of September", i.e. 18 August; probably "XIV" (19 August) is intended).}} His title of patrician and position as supreme commander were assumed by his nephew [[Gundobad]].{{sfn|Wolfram|1997|p=253}} Nonetheless, Ricimer had been a figure of major significance and historians Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell put this into context with the following: 

{{quote|In his seventeen-year rule of Italy Ricimer worked through four emperors—Majorian, Severus, Anthemius, and Olybrius—in almost cavalier fashion. Each was simply cast aside when they no longer served his purpose. Indeed Majorian, the last competent military emperor who took his position seriously, was deposed precisely because of this. There were three periods in which no Western emperor reigned at all. All Ricimer's public actions suggest that he found the Western emperor an irrelevant encumbrance, and he would probably have preferred to rule Italy directly in the name of the emperor at Constantinople.{{sfn|Williams|Friell|1999|p=184}}}}

Further contextualization that led to a barbarian generalissimo like Ricimer having so much influence on the Western Roman Empire is captured by historian James M. O'Flynn, who writes: 

{{quote|Circumstances in the West demanded the existence of a supreme military commander who had a long record of intimate contact with barbarian troops; by the 470s, this virtually meant that he should be a barbarian. If a barbarian was unacceptable on the imperial throne (and, from the time of Constantius III, the throne was becoming less attractive to the few Romans who were eligible as generalissimos), then there had to be a generalissimo to function as a middle-man between the emperor—the impotent figurehead—and the barbarian troops, who represented real power. One is tempted, at first view, to wonder why the eastern emperors, in addition to fostering western colleagues, did not occasionally try to cultivate some well-disposed candidate for the post of generalissimo. Had Leo attempted this, perhaps the western throne might have been saved.{{sfn|O'Flynn|1983|p=132}}}}

Without a powerful figure to guide it, the Western Roman Empire experienced an even more rapid succession of emperors, none of whom was able to effectively consolidate power. The line of Western Roman Emperors ended arguably in either 476 (with Odoacer's [[deposition of Romulus Augustus]]) or 480 (with [[Julius Nepos]]'s death), concentrating the remaining imperial power in far-off Constantinople. Historian J. B. Bury claims that Odoacer was more or less a constitutional successor to Ricimer.{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=408}}