476 is less arbitrary than most, but still not really satisfactory. 1204 has a strong claim by pure logic, but logic doesn’t always run historical narrative. 1453 is the most dramatic answer, but needs some wiggling to get to.
Much of the unique function of the Roman Empire was predicated on the central position of the city of Rome - the ascension of Diocletian was a decisive break with that idea. Diocletian shifted the Principate into the Dominate - the Late Empire is an entirely different beast from what came before it. A more dynastic outlook, the shift away from Latin culture, the destruction of the legitimizing role of the Senate, the move of the capital away from Rome itself, the effectively monarchial despotism and court functions championed by all Emperors thereafter.
After Diocletian, there is still an empire - but it’s only dubiously Roman.
What is your date od choice? Mine is 1453.
284, the ascension of Diocletian
476 is less arbitrary than most, but still not really satisfactory. 1204 has a strong claim by pure logic, but logic doesn’t always run historical narrative. 1453 is the most dramatic answer, but needs some wiggling to get to.
Alright, I’ll bite, could you expand a bit on your choice of 284? I don’t think I’ve seen that one suggested before.
Much of the unique function of the Roman Empire was predicated on the central position of the city of Rome - the ascension of Diocletian was a decisive break with that idea. Diocletian shifted the Principate into the Dominate - the Late Empire is an entirely different beast from what came before it. A more dynastic outlook, the shift away from Latin culture, the destruction of the legitimizing role of the Senate, the move of the capital away from Rome itself, the effectively monarchial despotism and court functions championed by all Emperors thereafter.
After Diocletian, there is still an empire - but it’s only dubiously Roman.